The “Evolutionary Worldview”

[T.j_Runyon]

@PDPrice

unreliable information,

Give me an example of unreliable information. If it was all unreliable, a rational mind would realize this information isn’t reliable. You don’t need reliable information to distinguish between the two. Things just wouldn’t work out very well for us.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@PDPrice

@Roy

I know I’ve been lied to. I’ve been lied to by creationists and IDers. Thousands and thousands of times. That’s why I know you’ve been lied to as well.

We’re not going to get anywhere. But thanks for your participation.

No, we’re not. But since you cite creation.com but don’t think you’ve been lied to, I suggest you follow reference #4 at https://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-a-young-universe and educate yourself.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Rumraket

@Roy

Falsification - you may not be able to show that your reasoning is working correctly, but you may be able to show yourself that it isn’t.

But how can I trust that I have shown that, if I am to understand that result through application of my reasoning?

Well, I suppose that if you try to reach a reasoned conclusion but discover that your conclusion doesn’t match reality, then you might think your conclusion not matching reality doesn’t necessarily mean your reasoning is not working. But if that’s the case, you wouldn’t have tried in the first place, and probably wouldn’t be capable of the mental effort of even considering the question.

Suppose I obtain some sort of reasoning-testing machine that outputs to a green or red LED depending on whether I have correctly(according to the machine) reasoned on some given problem. I now have to correctly reason the meaning of a green or red lamp.
But if I could in principle be somehow systematically reasoning incorrectly, then how can I trust my interpretation of the machine’s output? And we haven’t even got to how I can trust the machine. Suppose I made it myself. Then it’s internal function is dependent on my own understanding and reasoning, which could be flawed in some way I do not myself understand. Suppose I relegated that to someone else, how do I know they have made it correctly?

No, there really is no way out of this. No-one can avoid this absolutely foundational assumption.

The more I think about it, and the deeper I go, the closer to insanity I get. This way madness lies.

@Roy

But that’s based on our views, not his.

PDPrice is of course welcome to deny his birth as an infant, his life as a child, and him coming to believe in Christianity and the Bible later in his life, and insist that he somehow just knew the contents of the Bible even before he even came across the book.

Maybe if he insists on it so intensely sweat builds up on his forehead, he could start to believe that himself. I have zero hope of convincing presuppositionalists of anything. It is a hermetically sealed philosophy since they take it as axiomatic that any alternative is impossible.

He has also decided that anyone who disagrees with him is doing so because they have rejected his god and have thus not been gifted with the power of reason. An unassailable get-out clause. Of course he himself may not have been gifted with the power of reason, but he never seems to realise that his arguments apply to everyone.

@Roy

There are ways around that last problem (the fall, etc), but they all undermine PDPrice’s assumptions.

Yes, and that’s exactly the problem with his kind of presuppositionalism. It consists of exactly all the presuppositions that would make it impossible for him to discover if he is wrong.

@Roy

The existence of people who disagree with him refutes his argument.

Not from his position though, because he just has another presupposition that explains why those people exist. That’s the problem with a person who does not share the principle of modesty in making assumptions. Nothing prevents them from just assuming whatever needs to be assumed to explain away any apparent contradiction, disconfirming evidence, or counter-argument.

Yup. Ad hoc turtles all the way up.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@PDPrice

That means you claim to know things based on nothing more than the product of millions of years of unguided natural processes that did not have you in mind, and the forces that produced your brain did not have ‘truth knowledge’ in mind either. It’s a pretty shaky foundation for knowledge

@PDPrice

Because God created us to know truth and then subsequently reveals truth, we can know things. You have no such luxury in your worldview.

The whole line of strained verbiage is to impress the choir - “glory be, that’s deep”. But ask, if Christians have a more solid basis for knowledge, where does this kick in?

Do Christians recognize the truth of stop signs better than others?
Are Christians superior at solving murder mystery who-done-its than others?
Is every valedictorian always a Christian?
Are Christians the best stock pickers?
Are Christians better at math?
Are Christians better at chemistry?
Are Christians better at biochemistry?
Are Christians better at population genetics?
Are Christians better at discerning the history of life on earth?
Are Christians better at discerning origins?

Oh, but it is not about knowledge, it is about the basis of knowledge? What is that supposed to mean? If a Christian is wrong about a math problem, at least he is well based about it?

I’m calling nonsense.

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@cdods

My interest, in the context of Peaceful Science, is to have good conversation, and to learn as it relates to science. I think if we avoid focusing on our differences and seek to understand each other, we all gain. (And who knows. Maybe by seeking to learn, our foundational assumptions get changed ).

That is the purpose here. This is an unmoderated conversation that isn’t entirely elucidating. Reading over it, I think there may be value in, when I have some time, explaining my understanding of “worldview”.

[gbrooks9 (GeorgeB)]

@PDPrice

This is really what it’s all about. The Bible says what it says. You are disbelieving on the basis of assumptions about sediments. The reality is that those layers were put there by the Flood, not by gradual processes. Case in point.

@PDPrice

Yep… all true.

And so that means you and I have pretty much done our due diligence with the other’s topic.

There is no requirement here that you and I have to continue forever to attempt to convince each other of anything more.

I think we are both convinced, within an acceptable degree of certainty, that we understand the WHY of each other’s opinon.

There will be many a half-finished bowl of stew on these pages. It’s okay that we do not finish the meal with each and every recipe that comes through the door!