Be heartened by the fact that change is not only possible it has all ready happened. A nameless associate of mine was absolutely adamant that the Earth could not be older than 6000 years. Recently the group of people that he studies with distributed a 'DVD' explaining in detail the 'made for us' thinking that this group is famous for. Yes I did watch it and all though found it a little simplistic. It did quiet clearly say that the solar system is about 5 billion years old and that the universe is expanding ever quicker. We can see the back ground radiation of the big bang which at best estimate is 13.7 billion ly away. They all so went to great lengths to explain that we are in the right place to get the best view. Thus gain the knowledge we are destined to learn. None of this was a accident. Hmmm. . .Now I can not agree with most of that 'Intelligent design' thinking but, I will note the change of attitude. Has any one else noted this change of doctrine,?
Its like they have come half way.
and No I will not name the group. I do not wish to offend.
I hope That no insult is taken. This is the best idea, I think don't you,?

What a "literal view" means is that a choice has been made to believe that something is a certain way, despite evidence to the contrary. Anyone is free to make that choice, as it is a personal choice of belief, but in so choosing, they lose any claim on objectivity. This is the key difference between the scientific approach, which is also a choice, but it is a choice that hinges on objectivity and maintains it as the highest ideal. This, I feel, is what scientists must make clear-- not that science is "correct", because correctness in science falls within science, and that is circular reasoning. What must be made clear is that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge that has the hope of objectivity, that is just as true in a demonstrable way for every person on the planet. Thus the first thing that religious-minded people must learn is to let go of their assumption that their beliefs are objectively true, and recognize that they are in fact personal truths. That is also the difference between literal interpretations and allegorical ones. Then ask the question-- should a model of the solar system be considered to be an objective truth or a personal one? Which domain is the proper one for making such models? By applying these kinds of criteria, I think it becomes fairly easy for science and religion to coexist.

when I think of creationists I sometimes think of this quote from one of Graham Greene's books

"Innocence is like a dumb leper who has lost his bell, wandering the world, meaning no harm. "


that is when I feel charitable.

__________________

That quote fits well with this situation. That's what I've been thinking but just didn't have the words to describe it.

I never said anything about absolute truth. But I object to the notion that truth is relative to the extent that anything can equally said to be true depending on one's approach. I bet my operational definition of truth and that of a creationist are pretty similar when it comes to avoiding stepping off a balcony 40 floors up, whatever operational definition they are using for the age of the earth.

It seems to me that if you completely devoid the word "truth" of any meaning, you would then need a new word to mean those things that the vast majority of people would agree is true (like falling off tall buildings hurts) no matter what their approach to determining truth is when they are sitting safely in their armchair philosophizing about "facts" that only indirectly contradict their senses.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Again, I am not devoiding the word "truth" with meaning, quite the opposite-- I am trying to give the word a meaning, indeed, multiple meanings. I am saying that the word must be defined for every context in which it is used, a simple fact that is so often overlooked that it causes all kinds of problems. The plain truth is that the concept of "scientific truth" (the balcony variety) is not applicable in all situations, because the rules of science cannot be brought to bear in all situations. Most likely this is because science is an invention of the human mind (as are all approaches to truth, from a scientific perspective anyway), and I'm sure I needn't point out the problem with that. It is, nevertheless, an inescapable problem. It is related to the fact that no one knows why the scientific approach works as well as it does, and without knowing that, we don't really even know what it is that we are doing. We have just developed a certain familiarity with when it works, and in some cases extrapolated that into an "all things to all people" kind of mindset that is unsupportable within the very rules used to ascertain such truths. Science is justified by its value, not its correctness, in the sense that in science the latter is defined as the former. As scientists, we must deal with this existential foundation, there is none other.

But they take their objective views personal.

Yes, your logic is sound. However, religions are founded on "truth" (as they describe it in their terms). The Bible appears to have both literal and allegorical passages. Some passages do not read as allegory and are taken as literal. Faith in a literal view can be seen to be supported in other passages. My personal view is that it makes some sense in a literal framework that is compatible with modern science. However, I do agree wth you that an allegorical approach would allow for greater separation between objectivity and personal views. It just will not happen with many religions who are convinced they know the truth.

Nice. However, discovering correctness has value in itself; as virtue is its own reward.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

But many radically differing meanings results in a word devoid of any meaning when not qualified, and the qualification then says it all anyway.

What definition of "fact" are you using here? You wontedly use the word without qualification as if we all share some universally agreed upon mindset that allows us to talk meaningfully about "facts". Tut tut.

"The plain truth"? How does that mindset differ from scientific truth? Can I refute this by simply inserting my own definition of "plain truth"?

My view of scientific truth is that it is just an extention of the objective reality that all sane people share. We all agree on the truth of the fact then when we jump off bridges we fall. This is possible because we are hard-wired to observe and learn about the relationships existing between all the inputs and outputs of our brains - that's how we've suvived. Science is just taking that further by relying on the same repeatability of indirect sensory input. Those who deny the facts of science while maintaining the belief that jumping off a tall building would hurt are being logically inconsistent, however much their delusions are dressed up in philosophical exications of their brains.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Indeed. Thus the word must always be qualified when not obvious from context (and you often can't count on the latter).
My work is done here.

Again, you see the point. Truth is meaningless without a supplementary description of how it will be judged. My argument is essentially adopting the axiomatic approach. Since truth requires a mechanism for judging it, it never transcends the mechanism that defines it. 2 + 2 = 4 is true in a way that never says anything more than the axiomatic system that arrives at this truth. That this actually works in the real world is a huge mystery that no one can explain, and until we can, we must rely solely on the usefulness of the concept in practice. There's no such thing as an absolute truth.

I agree, objectivity is the essence of it. So here's the $64,000 question-- how do you know there is nothing meaningful or of value that is outside of what we could call objective? What system will be used to address those truths, assuming they exist (and I maintain that may very well exist, if one is willing to find a meaning of "exist" that works for that which is not objective. If, on the other hand, you reserve "exist" for what is objective, then you will need a new word for the alternatives.)

That is why it is never necessary for religion to deny any of science, merely seek an alternative way of thinking about something. An apple, to be an apple, need not deny the validity of the concept of an orange.

Agreed, in many contexts (such as mathematical logic) the context is very important. But in everyday language "truth" unqualified means that which is actually true beyond any reasonable doubt, like the age of the earth being orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.

So, you were using "fact" and "plain truth" unqualified to say that "truth" must always be qualified just to be ironic? If not then you were obviously contradicting yourself. If so, then you must agree that it is by no means a fact that the word "truth" must always be defined for every context, and it is by no means the plain truth that "scientific truth" is not applicable in all situations because by your reasoning I can disagree with your definitions of fact and plain truth and use my own that make "truth" synonymous with "scientific truth" in all situations.

Maybe you can see why I'm not a big fan of relative truth outside the confines of mathematical logic (which is itself irrelevant to how old the earth is - or any other fact about the objective reality we share)

The truth of the fact (agreed upon by any rational person) that jumping off a tall building will likely hurt transcends axiomatic approaches. In a sense, even a goat knows that truth.

When you say that it works in the real world you are effectively saying that 2+2=4 does actually transcend the axiomatic system in which it can be said to be absolutely true thus contradicting to the two other points you made in those three sentences while betraying a belief in absolute truth afterall - for how else could you judge that 2+2=4 in the real world?

I don't. But nor does anyone else. And anyone else who thinks they do is delluding themselves.

There is already a word for the alternatives: hogwash. Or to be more polite, if it ain't objective reality it just don't exist in any meaningfull way that can be discussed by anyone.

Religious people do claim to know facts that directly contradict actual facts (or scientific facts, if you prefer). There is no consistent set of axioms consistent with the earth being only 6000 years old that doesn't contradict something every sane person would claim is also fact. But if pushed, those well behaved religious people who don't deny science will eventually admit that they believe in a God who has had no observable interaction with the universe if they are intellectually honest.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

it does bring up an interesting point. at no point in, for example, the bible does Jesus get up in front of a crowd and say something like "blessed are the meek, for they shall inhereit the earth, which by the way is only 4000 years old." According to the people speaking from within the text of these religious documents, the purpose of their speaking is to provide moral and spritual guidance.
And nowhere within the basic laws of science do you find the converse. for example, the second law of thermodynamics does NOT read "entropy increases, except when you honor your father or mother".

it is people who have taken the background details from these religious texts and mistakenly equated them with the core tenets of their religion. It's as if the color of Lincoln's hat was just as important as the decisions he made in his life.

john

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Where's Kurt Godel when we need him?

__________________
"It's turtles all the way down."

My purpose was twofold. The sense I was using was the logical axiomatic sense, which I think could be argued is the most fundamental meaning of the word "truth". But I had the secondary purpose of showing that the word is ambiguous, as it can also be meant in the "operational" sense that you tend to use.

The former is certainly a fact, using the definition of fact as an uncontrovertible observation. (All words must be defined for every context, the number of words we use is far too small to be effective in the vast array of situations in which we need them. It's just that usually it would be too much overhead to do so, and we instead get away with a certain degree of ambiguity because it doesn't really matter. But here, precision in the most key words is crucial, as it is the crux of the debate.)
Also, you cannot make "truth" synonymous with "scientific truth" in all situations, your very approach paints you into the corner that you must restrict your attention to situations that are conducive to scientific analysis. The situation comes first, the words second, not the other way around. This is essentially the entire point I am making, in a nutshell.

I agree. I have never stated that a fact is less than a fact-- I am talking about more truths, not fewer. For example, I do not say it is absolutely true" that the world is not over 4 billion years old, nor do I claim that it is true that you won't die from fallling 20 stories. Those statements fly in the face of incontrovertible observations. The issue is around uniqueness of modes of thought, not falseness of particular ideas within a particular mode of thought. There is an operational definition of truth, the one we need the moment we get out of bed in the morning. And science has a very great deal to say about that mode, as science is all about what is effective in practice. My point is that this is not an all-inclusive definition of truth. Again, the situation comes first, the words second. The truth is defined by its context, and in some cases, it is objective, and in others, it is not, or you need a new word that we currently don't have.

No, something transcends the axiomatic truth that 2+2=4, and what that is is not truth, it is efficacy. Take gravity. We "know" that gravity is not a force, yet 99% of all physics calculations involving gravity treat is as such. Why is this? Because the truth about gravity is not the issue, it is the efficacy of the model. (We have no idea what the truth is about gravity, but we know that treating it as a force is an "effective theory", something that approximates reality closely enough to be useful in certain situations, and we have more accurate treatments when we need them too.) Truth does not transcend the assumptions of the model, efficacy does. ("Planets orbit the Sun" is another example of an effective theory, not the truth. Our own best models have the planets orbiting nothing in particular that can be so precisely defined, but we generally don't need to worry about the distinction.)

If you say that truth is efficacy, then you have adopted a particular approach to truth that is very much the scientific one. There are others that would not be satisfied with that replacement, they would feel cheated of the deeper quality of truth. Science, on the other hand, has nothing whatever to say about this latter issue, only philosophy and religion do. This is what is so great about science, we don't need to worry about anything but efficacy.

Yes-- it's an issue of faith, not knowledge.

our experiences in the really world continually reinforce the ideas behind basic mathematical operations such as 2+2=4 to such an extent that we take it for granted as a 'truth'.

__________________

Poetry. Art. Honor. These all have objective elements of course-- is that the whole of what they are? (To name a few).

Those that do are mistaken. What they have is not knowledge, it is faith.

I think the most fundamental meaning of the word "truth" is that which is actually true without the inverted commas (to a realistic degree of assuredness). You didn't show it was ambiguous, you showed what a contradictory mess you get into when you start claiming that truth is user-definable by making an absolute statement of "plain truth" about the relativity of truth.


But to someone else, what you claim to be fact could in fact be false by their definition of fact and your reasoning. How can anything meaningfull be said about anything if anyone can use any approach they like for ascertaining truth?

Well that in a nutshell sums up my view on truth. I'm not saying that there are no unknowns or even no unknowables, I am saying that no one else knows these unknowns and unknowables any better than spiritually ignorant me however much they like to think they do or whatever approach they like to take to convince themselves otherwise.

It is all-inclusive of truth as far as we can know it (so far). Anything further, any other modes of thought, approaches to obtaining truth etc. are literally utter hogwash if they claim to have actually established anything other than an answer of "don't know" for any question we can't, in principle at least, investigate scientifically.


No no no. It is actually true that objects gravitate towards each other. Just because we don't know why doesn't make that not true. Whether we model it as a force or as geometry also does not change the fact that objects do, as a matter of fact, gravitate towards each other either.

Another strawman. Just because it is convenient to treat planets as orbiting the Sun when dealing with the solar system doesn't mean that all facts are simply convenient simplifications. The fact that the Sun and the planets have the particular relative motions they do is fact, truth, absolutely and unequivacally as is the fact that I am typing this message.

Yes, people do feel cheated and want more truth than we can figure out even by a modest standard of certainty. I feel sorry for them. I think we should help them to grow up and accept the fact that that's all we know so far rather than encourage them to think that their mental delusions are the result of legitamate approaches to ascertaining "truth".

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Certainly we do not understand the whole of what they are scientificially. But in principle we can certainly enquire scientifically into what makes the whole. That is just a God of the Gaps argument. A couple of hundred years ago you could have pointed to the existence of life to make the same point -and you would have been wrong back then too because even though the answer to the origin of life wasn't known back then, it was certianly open to scientific enquiry. And before the answer was found every other answer that was derived through some other approach to ascertaining truth was wrong. And remember, back then, this other mode of thought for that truth would have been ok by you for the same reason that you think that poetry, art, and honour make your point now.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

This may be true, but for most denominations, if you ask them for their tenets, you won't see the age of man or the earth in the list. But, what you will likley see is a tenet affirming a religious document(s) to be true, accurate (possibly by devine inspirataion), and to be believed. If the passage is allegorical, science will get little criticism, otherwise, conflicts transpire. If it is obvious to some a passage is not allegorical, for whatever reason, then it is understandable they would say science is lacking in getting the full truth. Of course, they could simply reinterpret the passages based on wonderful illumination from science, but that is a road rarely traveled, regretfully.

I wish it were that simple. There are reasonably strong religious passages supporting some YEC views. A reinterpretation already exists that makes sense of science and allows for a literal interpretation, but that is the reluctant road few will travel, at least for now.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Everyone I know who rejects evolution seems to do so because of religious reasons.

Aren't most the scientific objections gone? People forget just how unacceptable to science Darwin's ideas of natural selection and branching originally were; he lacked fossil evidence, Lord Kelvin showed the age of the earth was far less than needed, no mechanism could explain how traits would continue, transitionary zones had few transitionary species, etc. It wasn't till genetics came along that people awoke. The other objections disappeared or became less of an issue.

If one knows the supernatural is real, how can everything be accepted as natural? This, is likley a frustrating issue for religion. Remove the earth as the center of the universe, demons from around every corner (prior centuries), super complex life from natural development only, etc. and where lies "religious efficacy", using Ken's cool word of the thread?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

while people may choose to fall back on this line of reasoning, their doing so does not make that line of reasoning any more correct or verifyable. and when observational data contradict hypotheses, it is the hypotheses which must be altered to fall in line with the data.

Goerge, you don't need to wish it to be that simple. it is. the bible, for example, is an inappropriate source to use as a science text for the simple reason that it does not adequately explain the data with sufficent detail to replace actual science. End of argument, case closed, claim dismissed. It is no more appropriate to claim 2+2=5 on a religious basis and then ask for full credit on a math test then to claim creationism be taught in lieu of evolution.
People can complain and whine all they want about their *rights* and religious *tolerence* as a smokescreen to force one particular denomenation on an unwilling public much in the same way a small child can throw a temper tantrum. But the only thing that child should receive is a swift swat across the bottom and a trip to the corner.

john

PS: there is *one* spot in the New Testament where Jesus speaks directly to the people about the distinction between god and the secular world. He tells people to "render unto god what is god's and render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's". The quote is often taken to strictly mean financial terms, but in reality it is a direct quote arguing for seperation of religion and the secular world. The quote can be placed in further context by the exchange between Pilate and Jesus where Pilate asks Jesus about his kingdom and Jesus replies that his kingdom is not of this earth and "If it were, my people would be fighting that I not be handed over." Again, we see the contrast between the physical world around him and the spiritual world within his person.

So if the Gospel is to be believed at face value as inerrant, here we have two quotes from Christ delimiting the role of religion to a magistrate of the spirit and renouncing claim over earthly matters. Of course, I would add that the first thing that the righteously religious usually trample is their own faith.

__________________
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."

--Ambrose Bierce

http://threelittleboxes.com

Well there's a circular definition if I ever heard one. But the point is not to attack any particular definition of truth, it is to make the simple point that any effort to define truth as something absolute will automatically exclude a large fraction of human endeavor. That is certainly allowable, but a new word must appear in its place, and above all, scientists cannot lay claim to the word without permission from the rest of the population. Science cannot lay claim to any truth beyond scientific truth, which is a form of truth that is long on efficacy and short on profundity. Personally, I am happy that scientists need not seek a profound sense of truth, they can stick to "the proof is in the pudding" approach that is quite a bit more concrete. But I am also aware of the price that is paid, in terms of limiting the applicability of the term to areas of scientific inquiry. A quick perusal of any collegiate curriculum will demonstrate the point-- this is a limited area of applicability. The "my way or the highway" mindset that is rather rife on this forum will not serve science in the long run-- it is shortsighted and tends to alienate rather than educate.
Let me answer that with an analogy. Chess is a game with certain rules. If you play a game of chess, you may assume your opponent will not suddenly grab your king and say, "I win, haha." They have entered into those rules when they sat down with you. But this does not mean there are not other games, with other rules. So it is with methods of ascertaining truth.

You are drawing a connection between the word "know" and the word "truth", but no such connection is required or implied by either term. It is true that science, of all human endeavors, seems to come closest to being able to forge such a connection, but it is a fools errand, as has been shown over and over in history. Yes, we make progress, and yes, we expand our knowledge all the time, but personally I have no doubt whatsoever that if there is a real truth, then our conception of it is so far from what it really is as to be almost laughable to higher beings (if any such beings exist, and if they are any closer to real truth). What is a dog's conception of the truth about their own world? So it is with our own, of course. Nevertheless, our accomplishments are astounding. Quite a mystery, really.

I agree, but again you are connecting the term "truth" with the term "establishing". Other modes of approach to truth do not necessarily involve establishing anything. Was Van Gogh trying to paint something true? I imagine he felt so, for lack of a better word (again, the syntactic problem). What, then, did he "establish" by doing so? Was his contribution valueless as a result? Most nonscientific quests for truth are unable to aspire to an objective result, the way science is. That's because objectivity is hard-wired into the goals of science, which is of course both its greatest strength and its greatest limitation. You will probably claim it is simply because science is the only pursuit that is not hogwash, but I think that's just a shame.

Agreed, it is an observed fact that all else being equal, the distance between two objects will decrease with time. This requires definition of time and distance, which will be defined scientifically (involving measurement, of course), which will already throw "truth" out the window in favor of efficacy (who knows what is really true about possible descriptions of events, but we settle for their time and location because our brains can conceive it and we can measure it. A thousand years from now, we might use something a bit different. It certainly came as a shock when time and space got unified.) But the really interesting part is the "all else being equal" part. Just what else has to be equal for two objects to gravitate toward each other? We have no idea, we don't have examples of things that don't so gravitate. Not yet, anyway. Maybe we never will. It will never imply that such things don't or can't exist, there just is no place for them in science until they are observable as such.
What I would say is that it is a fact that if you take the Sun and planets and project them onto the human concept of "motion", and further project the concept of motion onto the human measurables "time" and "distance", you will indeed get a certain result that we will call a fact. Is this what they are "really doing"? How much truth has been thrown away in the process of making those projections? We may never know, or maybe someday we will learn they are doing more than just this, in some higher dimension or alternate description of reality (string theory and quantum mechanics are already examples of this, but they don't really count because there is nothing left of importance on the scale of a planet). We will never discover that astrology is scientific, for example, because that has already been tested and it never conformed to a scientific model in the first place. But we will certainly never know that our conception of Sun and planet, and their motion, is anywhere remotely close to all that is going on there. You can say it's all you care about, others may not agree. It's simply not an absolute truth.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about that statement, and nothing in it that is establishable using science. It is essentially an expression of your own personal religion. That's fine, you are as allowed to have your own subjective version of what is right as anyone else.

Why say "back then"? They are still OK. They are just not part of the scientific approach, which has its own rules for choosing what should be kept and what should be thrown out. To the extent that what you are talking about are old scientific theories, then yes, they have gone the way of so many theories, and so many more that we accept today will meet a similar fate down the line. But there has been no fundamental change in the various modes of inquiry applied by humans, merely a refinement of one of them while the others continue to struggle as they are wont to do.

Thanks George, and I think the answer to that may be that "religious efficacy" is kind of an oxymoron-- piety is often very challenging and involves perpetual struggle to pursue earnestly. In science, it is generally best to seek the easiest path to your goal, and jettison ideas that seem awkward or difficult to apply in practice.

Your signature sums it up rather perfectly, I would say. From the perspective of contrast to science, I mean (to keep it on topic).

That's true. The Bible was never meant to explain the universe, it's only there to tell you how to live your life. Take it for what it's worth and don't try to get anything else out of it. I think that's where creationists get this from, they try to take everything literally and use the Bible to explain things it wasn't meant to explain.

It's their only source of authority.

__________________

Unless, of course, you believe something is true in spite of contradictory evidence. This is true even in science. Darwin's evolution was not discarded when thermodynamics, from Kelvin, clearly demonstrated the time frame was inadequate. Once radioactivity was discovered, it was the new observational evidence that changed the false conclusion drawn from the original observational evidence. Science keeps doors open to new possibilities and offers no hard proof for any theory. It becomes a matter of the relative strength of a religious belief vs. the argumentative strength of the scientific evidence. This struggle is greater the more complex the scientific concepts are to comprehend.

I doubt anyone here, including me, thinks creationism should be in any science class.

You can find much scripture supporting many things, YEC is not short on supporting passages for their views, which we probably should not get into here in BAUT. Yet, IMO, YEC's interpretation is in error, and another literal view makes sense which is not contradictory to science, I think. This should be explored by both sides, but will it?

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

I had a hunch you'd be stirred with that one. It was meant to be synomomus with reiligous potentcy, but I like the action form found in "efficacy" better. As an oxymoron, I will liken it to "literal intperpretaion", where literal means something that requires no interpretation. Its use transcends this definition, mainly becuase more than one non-allegorical interpretation exists (e.g. was the "day" the day experienced by the observer when he observed, or the time frame God took to do all His work which the observer noted? Both are literal days.).

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

Yeah, that's a good one, that hadn't occured to me as often as we see that phrase!