Truth...the Facebook questions

For those of you who aren’t part of the thread on Facebook:

A friend posted a question after watching people (Christians and Non-Christians) tearing each other apart over the recent election. To make a long story short, he said that the real loser in all of this was: The Truth.

He decided to posit a couple of questions:

1. What is the Truth?

2. Does the Truth matter?

This is my rather lengthy response. It’s not my usual way of writing. Not like one of my articles that I spend time researching and editing and proofreading. This is just typed as I would say it. So at times it may seem disjointed and a bit confusing. I will try to avoid that as much as possible, but I want to get this up for Andy and others to read so as to do my part in answering the questions in a timely manner.

So that being said…I apologize in advance for typos and the like.

Andy...interesting note. Yes there is such a 'thing' as truth. And Yes...it does matter. Http://the-realtiy-check.com. That's the address to a site I maintain that addresses Truth in many aspects of life. I actually have an article on the site I wrote a couple of years ago entitled “Absolute Truth”. Much of what I say here is probably said there as well (and probably better since I took the time).

So, what is truth?

We must define the terms prior to debating them. There is partial truth, subjective truth, and absolute truth to try to narrow them down. The answer to the question would seem to be obvious; if there is something that contradicts a "truth" is it then a lie. It would seem obvious except we must first look at an important premise of our question; we are assuming that the “truth” in question is an absolute. If it is not, then we cannot come to a conclusive answer.

The main energy of your question has been the debate throughout philosophy called the epistemological argument. Epistemology is, in essence, how we come to know the things we know. What is the process for determining knowledge as true or false? If you follow this line of questioning back a while you will come to the philosopher Renee Descartes and his famous Cogito: “I think therefore I am.” To Descartes that was the starting point. The only thing he knew to be true and certain was ‘he existed’. A little further on we come to another philosopher Nietzsche, he thought that since what he knew to be “true and certain” 5 years previous, he came to find weren’t “true and certain”, so why should he believe anything to be “true and certain” only to find out in the future that they may not be. Then he made the statement; “What does the truth matter?”

Now, let’s jump ahead a few years to another philosopher named Francis Schaeffer. He talked at length about truth and the addressed the question; is there such a thing as truth, and does it really matter? He made a differentiation between types of truth and came to the conclusion that the only truth we should really concern ourselves with is True Truth, and he stressed the capital “T’s”. Schaeffer was a Christian and wrote many books and even did a book and then a film series entitled “How Should We Then Live?” I think this is really the question at the heart of the issue.

If there really is an absolute truth, a True Truth, what does it look like/feel/taste/sound like, and once it can be identified how does it apply to our lives? How should we then live in light of this True Truth?

First, let’s examine some characteristics of truth.

If ‘truth’ is dependent upon human understanding, then only that which we as humans can understand is truth.

If ‘truth’ is subjective, then there is truth for each person is different, and therefore not absolute, not True Truth.

If ‘truth’ is dependent upon circumstance, then only in a single specific circumstance will that truth become True Truth.

If ‘truth’ changes in any way, shape, or form; if it is not constant and unchanging, then it by default isn’t True Truth.

For any ‘truth’ to be True Truth (absolute truth) it must have the following qualities:

It must be immutable, unchanging, always the same, and constant. If it changes, then there is nothing we can really come to know.

It must come from outside of us; it must be self defining and self existing. If it comes from within us, then it would change as we change, see #1.

At this point I try to show people that True Truth is not always easy to spot. Sure, as a Christian, I can look at scripture and see things that are obviously True Truth. But can I, can you, find something that the Bible doesn’t talk directly about and recognize them true or false?

I use this litmus test, in part for those things:

For something to be true, it must first have intrinsic value, AND it must apply to something other than which it was originally intended.

You see, that’s the thing that most people don’t get. True Truth runs throughout all of God’s Creation. You can see its fingerprints everywhere if you look. There isn’t “a truth”, there aren’t “many truths”; there is one singular True Truth, which is applied to everything.

Jesus told us that He is the way, the Truth, and the life. Jesus is True Truth. He told us that His word is the Word of Truth; He told us that He would honor His Word above His Name. In John 1:1 we find that Jesus was in the beginning, the Word, the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then later in the chapter the Word came down and dwelt with man.

His creation, His life, His death, His resurrection, His ascension, His mediation are True Truth.

Our goal as Christians is to live the life that Christ gave up for us on the cross. We must decrease so that He may increase. We must die daily. We must daily take up our cross and follow him. That is the thing that many people forget to tell new converts to Christianity. This isn’t a “decision” it is a radical sacrifice of your life to Christ. We give up everything and give it to Him. It’s not the ‘feel good’ Christianity that is extolled so often across so many pulpits in so many churches around the world. Where we get some ‘fire insurance’ and ‘grace’ and use it as a license to sin without having to pay for the consequences.

Here’s an example of True Truth:

No one can force you to do anything. You are free to choose to do whatever you want to. BUT, you’re not free to avoid the consequences of your choices.

It is also said this way:

You reap what you sow.

Other people will say something like this:

What comes around goes around.

True Truth is the fiber of reality. It is what binds the universe together.

Let me ask you a question? Prior to Mt. Everest being discovered, what was the tallest mountain on the earth?

Answer: Mt. Everest!

You see, truth isn’t dependent upon our understanding or even upon our knowledge of it for it to remain True!

People may not understand what I mean when I say that there is one singular truth, which is applied to everything. Scripture says it like this: “In Him we live and move and have our being.” There isn’t anything that is that wasn’t made by God!

Truth is what it is. When Moses asked God, “who shall I tell them [the Israelites] sent me?” God replied, “I am that I am.” That sounds cryptic, I know. But what He was saying to Moses then and to us today and to our children tomorrow is that He is everything He is...and He will never change! This is really good for us. Truth is the reality of this life and God’s rule and authority over everything that was, is or will be created. Truth is God’s supremacy. Truth is what God makes true.

Why does the truth matter?

If we cannot know anything to be true for everyone [absolute], then we can really know nothing and maybe we are just a dream of some god and when he wakes up everything we call reality ends. If there is no absolute truth, then there is no reason to do good or punish bad. There would be no point of reference that tells everyone what is good and bad. It would be like some today want to believe, “There is no such thing as right and wrong. Right?” I find it funny that this is typically the way this type of statement is made. Someone makes a statement about the non-existence of method to determine true or false and then asks for someone to agree to the truth of the statement.

I was in a conversation with and individual once who said; “There is no way to really prove anything.” To which I responded; “Really? Prove it.” He didn’t have a response.

If someone says to you; “There are no absolutes.” Ask them this; “Do you believe that absolutely?”

Our very everyday lives depend upon True Truth. We need a fixed point of reference by which to navigate the stormy waters of life. If all the points of reference we have are mobile, or dependent upon us, we will be lost at sea. If, however, the means by which we navigate is separate from us, not dependent upon us, and immoveable, then we can find our way.

So…Truth matters because without it we might as well be dead, because there is no point to anything. We couldn’t even begin to know anything for certain.

How to tell what it looks like:

A good place to start would be with the 10 commandments, the Law. Don’t be like the Pharisees who made 10 Laws into thousands of rules and regulations and became legalistic about them. We see the example of the greatest teacher to ever set foot upon the earth…Jesus. He boiled them all down to these two:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.

In doing these you will have fulfilled the Law and the Prophets.

God gave us His Word. His Word is like a map, His Holy Spirit is like a compass. If you just have the map, you can probably generally find your way. If you just have the compass, then you will at least have the right direction of travel. But if you have both, and read the map while constantly checking with your compass, the chances of you straying really become slim.

I’m sorry this was so long…not really. ;-) I like to do this type of thing. The question; “Does Truth really matter?” is easy…Yes! But the question; “What is Truth?” could take a lifetime to answer completely. The simple answer to “What is Truth?”… Jesus is! My suggestion for anyone who wishes to truly understand Truth better is to get to know Jesus better and better each day of your life. That would be Total Truth.

Study and show yourself approved a willing worker that need not be ashamed.

I have some reference material that I would recommend on this subject matter:

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity—Nancy Pearcy

How Should We Then Live—Francis Schaeffer

I am currently working on something that will address some of this amongst other topics with some very intelligent and talented friends. The title is a working title at the moment and will probably change; it specifically addresses ‘religious people’ or the Pharisees [read ‘Turbo Christians’] of our day. It will be released as a book and DVD entitled: “So You Want To Win the World for Christ? Don’t Be An Ass!”

So…I don’t really know how people will receive this. But let me say this much more. The Truth is not relative, it is not subjective, it is absolute or it is not Truth. There is a right and wrong, there are consequences to everything we do; good and bad. Regardless of what you know, believe, think, or feel the Truth is independent of all of them. Just because you don’t understand, feel, or want to believe it doesn’t change Truth. We don’t create Truth, it is self-existent. We must stand up for the Truth, protect the Truth, and live the Truth.

The one who will not take a stand for something, will fall for anything.

I challenge everyone to have reasons for what they believe.

Why do you believe what you believe? Have you ever thought about it? Do you let others choose your beliefs for you? What does it all mean? Why are we here? Where did we come from? Where are we going?

The Truth, no matter how painful it may be, really does set you free; disillusionment is never fun but it is always good.

"The greatest homage to truth is to use it."-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Know the Truth.

Protect the Truth.

Manifest the Truth to others.

That’s my 2 cents! Blessing everyone!

Mark

Election 2008---finding your sample ballot in Indiana

I know that many people are interested in finding out all of the facts on candidates before election day so as to make informed decisions when they vote. But it would also seem prudent to know what to expect before you walk into the voting booth. Do you really know what judges should retain their seats and so on.

Well, in Indiana (at least) we have a way of finding out what will be on the actual ballot.

To do that (for Indiana) you can follow these steps with the following links:

(you must have Adobe Acrobat for the final ballot)

1. You need to find out which precinct you are in. To find out click here and enter the information it requests.
a. It will ask you to select your County from a drop down list.
b. Last name, First name, and Date of Birth
c. Then click the "Find" button

That should bring up another page. For us, this page already had the "Polling Place" category expanded.

2. Click on the "+" next to "Search Results"

(This should expand that category and reveal your voting precinct--write down or remember you voting precinct)

3. Once you have your precinct number, click here to locate which ballot style number you'll be using.

(This link will take you to another page that has you precinct # on the left hand side and on the right hand side the corresponding position will contain the ballot style number--write down or remember your ballot style number)

4. Once you have your ballot style number, click here to find your ballot. This will include all national, state, and specific local questions you'll be asked when you go to place your vote.

Step 4 is where you will need to be sure to have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer. If you don't have it, you can get it here. There should be a list, find your ballot and click on it.

Once you have all of this done you can either save the document on your computer or you can print it off to look up anything you want or simply to familiarize yourself with the ballot you will be faced with this election season.

Happy voting!

Mark

I'm BAAACK!

Well....I know it's been awhile...okay...a really long time since I posted anything. So here I am now to let you all know that #1. Yes...I am still alive. #2 No...I haven't forgotten how to type. and #3. Yes...I will try to do better in the future in keeping my posts more up-to-date!

Now...as a point of order...for those of you who don't know...I am no longer working at Edy's Grand Ice Cream. Long story short...I got fired without a legitimate explanation as to what I did wrong. Basically bogus! So, for now, I am unemployed and on a regular daytime schedule! I am looking for work, and I plan on trying to take some classes to further my education.

Summer is almost over and Lisa's garden has been stellar this year! Tons of good, healthy, tasty stuff! We have canned, frozen and eaten quite a bit, but we plan on doing a lot more of all three before it's all said and done this season.

I've been busy taking pictures, and trying to get better at different aspects of it as well as exploring new areas that I haven't heard of/done before. You can check out some of the pics on my Flickr page here.

In case you don't want to go check them out now, here are a couple of examples:

This photo of the sunflower is done with something called HDRi which stands for High Dynamic Range Imaging. Basically, it is 3 photos at different exposures (dark, correct, and light) combined together to get all of the color range possible so as to make it look more real or even sur-real. The surreal aspect of HDR intrigues me as an art form, which this sunflower was my first attempt at. BTW, I'm sure you see the watermark "Photomatix" on the pic. That is the software I used to do the photo in HDR, but since I didn't buy it, the watermark is there.

Here's another HDR shot, that isn't quite as 'artistic':



This is a pic of the sun behind the clouds in late after noon. You'll have to pardon the couple of spots on this pic, I didn't realize I needed to clean the lens prior to a few of these shots.

Here's another pic:



Lisa snapped this shot one evening in the back yard. She is so cute! I don't know what to say...she takes after her mother!----Thank God!!!!!!!

Again, if you want to see more go to my Flickr page linked above.

Well...I guess that's all for now...

I promise I will post again soon...........much sooner than the last time.

What would convince a Christian...part 3

Okay, I'm going to warn everyone right from the start, this is long....really.

I received another email from Adam asking for more clarification on certain points and also asked more questions. Below, I have pasted my response to him.

I have made the color of his questions like this while my response remains in this color.


And now………I begin!__________________________________________________

“I read over your list with interest. I have some more specific comments, but in general, there's one point I want to make. I'm sure you can agree it would be hypocritical for you to reject a proposition for failing to meet certain criteria when you accept a different proposition that also fails to meet those very same criteria. I'm wondering if the things you presently believe meet the standards of proof you're asking to see before you would consider accepting evolution.”

Of course it would hypocritical of me to reject one proposition for failing to meet certain criteria while accepting another proposition that also fails to meet the same criteria. That is contingent, of course, upon whether or not both propositions require the same self-imposed standard by which the criteria is judged.

To be more specific, the topics in question (age of the earth and Theory of Evolution), claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research and as such are required to adhere to the self-imposed standard of the scientific method, which is why my first criteria was ‘Truly Observable Evidence.’ For me to believe in the ‘scientific’ validity of their claims, those claims must prove, first and foremost, that they are truly scientific i.e. in compliance with the scientific method.

Does Christianity claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research? No. As such there is no self-imposed standard of the scientific method that it must adhere to. Christianity does not claim to be science. This does not hinder a Christian, however, from utilizing the scientific method to determine whether or not there is suitable evidence to support the Biblical assertions of specific events, processes, places and/or people.

When one uses the scientific method to explore the claims of the Bible, for the most part it is in agreement with the Bible (when it comes to claims about events, how the world works, places, etc.), but certain claims of the Bible cannot be scientifically verified for the same reason that certain claims of the theory of evolution cannot—we weren’t there to observe it.


“Documented spontaneous generation in an observable format would be very compelling. Evolution does not require the occurrence of spontaneous generation, nor is it dependent on any other hypothesis about the origins of life.”

Hmmm…Interesting. I have a couple of questions for you then. First, by what means did life originate then? What is your stance on the origination of matter, the universe, and life?

By starting in the middle of the process (your current stance on evolution as I understand it) or just after the very beginning (of life) and evolution begins…it is in fact establishing the rules as to how thing progress from that point forward, the question is naturally one of, “If this process is responsible for how things progress, logically should the same rules not also have applied for the origination or generation of life?”

“Uniform Evidence If the theory of evolution is true, then it should have explanations that are consistent in all scientific disciplines and areas of life including philosophical venues. (i.e. morality, ethics, rape, murder, molestation, religion, politics, information origin, etc.) All these types things should be able to be explained using the process of evolutionary theory without conjecture or undocumented supposition. Evolutionary theory is an explanation for how life changes and diversifies over time in response to environmental pressures. It is not a theory intended to explain the enormous array of different fields you've just listed - in particular, it is not meant to provide a complete accounting of every human cultural behavior - so I find it unreasonable of you to demand that it explain all those things anyway.”

I do understand what the Theory of Evolution is, what it says, and what it doesn’t say; I however do not find it unreasonable to have it explain those things I listed. If we are, as the Theory of Evolution asserts, the result of random chance, and a purely mechanistic explanation is all there is, then the logical conclusion is: The process that biologically/genetically (mechanistically) brought us to where we are is also responsible for the resultant behaviors and as such only those behaviors that are deemed beneficial should remain as they are the result of biological natural selection. In other words, if the Theory of Evolution is the sole mechanism by which we have come to be, then it is very reasonable to conclude that it is responsible for everything including morality, ethics, religion, politics etc. Even though officially the Theory of Evolution does not state that it addresses these things, it implores them to be addressed by its silence, by implication.

“Origin of Information Observation of how specificity (specifically complex specificity) came to be along with answers to the following: I don't know how to meet this criterion unless you define your terms more specifically. What definition are you using for "information", and is it the same thing or a different thing than "complex specificity"? Can you give me an objective metric or formula that I can use to evaluate two DNA strings and determine which one of them contains more information?”

First, the question is probably moot as you have stipulated that evolution does not address origin, but rather the process by which things are transformed into something else. However, I still affirm that while the Theory of Evolution does not state that it addresses origins, by inference it pleads them to be addressed.

Now I will attempt to answer your question specifically.

Information and complex specificity are different not the same. Complex specificity is a combination of types of information. Defining information is difficult. I will try my best to do so, however, I don’t know that I can define it properly without the use of metaphor and analogy. For the upcoming analogy, I define “language convention” as: the methodology by which information is understood to have meaning or form, the set of rules that governs the meaning of specific information.

The DNA coding system can be compared to that of a compact disc. The music on a compact disc is stored in a digital fashion and can only be appreciated if you have knowledge of the language convention used to create the information on the disc. Appropriate machinery, which functions to translate that code into music, is also required for the music to be played. In a compact disc player this decoding process involved dozens of electronic and moving parts.

When you look at a compact disc, you see no evidence of the musical information stored on the disc's surface. Once the disc is formatted and imputed with information, it weighs no more than it did before this procedure was done. This is because information has no mass or weight. Without the knowledge of the language convention used to create the disc and the machinery to translate it, we are unable to use it for anything but a coaster or maybe a trashy Christmas tree ornament. This is exactly the same predicament facing spontaneously derived DNA or any information storage system.


The information carried by the DNA molecule contains the instructions for all the structures and functions of the human body. Within each cell resides all the necessary hardware to decode and utilize that information.


If one examines the sequence of nucleotides on the DNA molecule, they simply have the look of a long chain of chemicals and not the appearance of a message system or a code. It is only when one possesses knowledge of the language convention (the genetic code) and the appropriate machinery to translate the coded information on the DNA molecule that the nucleotide sequence becomes understandable. Without such knowledge and machinery, the sequences on a spontaneously derived DNA molecule are meaningless.


Consequently, my question is for you to explain how a language convention (the genetic code) and the necessary cellular machinery to translate the information stored on the DNA molecule came to be.

Also, when I asked how a life form acquires 'more information', I mean: By what process does the 'new programming' come about? All that we currently observe is a loss of information (programming) not a gain. For example (very simplistic) as we breed dogs, we see a line of breeds from say the German shepherd to the Chihuahua. The German shepherd and the Chihuahua are both canine, but the shepherd is larger, stronger, faster, better eyesight, stronger immune system, etc. This is because there is a certain genetic programming in the shepherd. When we look at the Chihuahua, we see a small, weak, comparatively slow, in some cases nearly blind, sickly dog that can catch a deathly cold fairly easily. This is the result of a change (loss) in the genetic programming for the other attributes. The loss is not in an amount but in specification or direction.

Another example is: white light contains all the colors and it's spectrum is ROY G. BIV. The white light contains all the 'information' (programming) in this case. How would red and yellow light produce white light once again? It has lost the Blue component. There has been a "loss of information" (programming). They can't, they lack the 'information' (programming) to become white light. They can be combined in different proportions to make orange and various shades of orange, red, and yellow, but they lack the ability to become white, or for that matter, blue, or purple, etc. Once the genetic programming is there, we do not see evidence for anything but a loss of information (programming). We do not see a gain. If we did, it would be akin to abiogenesis, except it would be ainfogenesis.


“Genuine particle to people evolution occurring before our eyes If someone were to figure out a way to accelerate the evolutionary process from billions of years to a few days or weeks and we could observe the full course of evolution right before our eyes. This would have to be with minimal to no interference and in the real world not the virtual world. I can't understand this condition. First you say that someone would have to somehow accelerate evolutionary change so that we could watch it happening. Then you say that this has to be done with minimal to no human intervention. It seems to me you're simultaneously asking for and ruling out human interference in the natural course of events. Please explain.”

Sorry, I guess that is a little confusing the way I wrote it. With minimal to no interference, I mean no correction of direction of the process as it occurs should take place. I need to see the absence of intelligent design influencing the process. Someone would find a way to ‘flip a switch’ genetically or atomically or whatever, that would cause the evolutionary process to occur at a highly rapid pace and from that point on would not be interfered with, or directed by anyone.

“Concurrent, Honest, and Unbiased Evidence Evidence without internal arguments or divisions Conclusive evidence agreed upon by ALL scientists, not just a consensus of the majority of mainstream scientists. It seems reasonable to expect that if the evidence supporting the age of the earth to be billions of years old or the theory of evolution were true, then it would be agreeable to only one interpretation. So let's get this straight: For you to accept evolution is true, it has to be agreed upon by every single scientist in the world? If even one scientist disagrees, that would count as a veto in your eyes? If that is the case, do you also apply this same criterion to Christianity? Do you demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before you'll believe in it? After all, it seems reasonable to expect that if Christianity were true, then it would be agreeable to only one interpretation. Is that what we actually find?”

If I may quote you, “I'm sure you can agree it would be hypocritical for you to reject a proposition for failing to meet certain criteria when you accept a different proposition that also fails to meet those very same criteria.”

I’m sure you recognize your own words. In this instance when I chose the category of “Evidence without internal arguments or divisions”, I simply rephrased your challenge of “Religion without internal disputes or factions.” I realize that you stated that there could be the result of human influence and as such would only be circumstantial not conclusive. However, I thought that if you could use that argument so could I.

Obviously, there are internal disputes and factions within the fields of science. Do you demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before you'll believe in it? Do you also apply this same criterion to your belief system? Please understand that I am not trying to throw your words in your face or pull a fast one on you. I am simply trying to do as you did in confronting me, make sure the playing field is level.

Now to specifically answer your question: No. I do not demand that a particular belief system be completely internally consistent, without any conflicting sects or varying interpretations, before I will believe in it.

However, I posit: Neither do you. So why would you require this of theism?

In light of that you did bring up some interesting points, on which I would like to comment. The following applies to this question and another one of my points that you questioned, particularly “Unbiased Review of Evidence” Your objection was as follows:

“How do you tell the difference between religious individuals being unjustly excluded from publication simply because of their religious beliefs, and religious individuals being justly excluded from publication because their preconceived faith commitments to anon-scientific position lead them to write shoddy, fallacious, or evidentially unsupported papers that cannot withstand peer review?”

My point is that science is supposed to be objective, and scientists claim that they are objective. Whether or not a scientist is justly or unjustly excluded isn’t my objection. I object to the exclusion. If their papers are shoddy, fallacious, or evidentially unsupported then let peer review point out the shoddiness, fallaciousness and the unsupported evidence used. It is entirely possible that some of the scientists that are currently excluded from peer review could be doing great work in their field. It is also possible that another scientist is wrong in his conclusion yet another in the same field could point out where the former was wrong, yet be inspired to go in a direction that the latter had not yet thought of until reading said paper. I realize this particular example is purely hypothetical, yet it is reasonable.


Correct me if I am wrong but is every scientist that is published in peer review journals/publications always right/correct in his/her findings or conclusions?


If he/she isn’t always right/correct, then how does the peer review process point that out?


How are mistakes corrected?



Isn’t the peer review process part of the scientific method? Aren’t truly ‘objective’ scientists expected to take into consideration experiments that have been preformed and then test the conclusions made by performing the same and other experiments that will either disprove or support the previous conclusion(s)?

I thought that this was the methodology to which scientists are supposed to adhere; yet it would appear that simply based upon the conclusion or a pre-disposition other scientists are being excluded from the entire process.


How does this advance science and the search for the truth?


I would argue that the assumption that "preconceived faith commitments” necessitates the automatic label of “non-scientific” position. I assume in this case you are arguing the “Intelligent Design isn’t falisifiable, therefore it isn’t science” point of view. The problem with this is simply the facts that some scientists have (in the case of Michael Behe’s work on bacterial flagellum, blood clotting, and the eye) responded by falsifying his conclusions. So my answer is, either it is falsifiable and therefore science or it is not falsifiable and therefore not science. It can’t be both.

Now let me try to answer another of your questions, …If only one scientist were to disagree would that count as a veto in my eyes? Yes and No. Let me explain…

If 1,000,000 scientists (having properly employed the scientific method) arrive at the conclusion that the experiment supports the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then by that data (and by definition) the conclusion is valid. However, if 999,999 scientists were to come to that conclusion and only one single scientist were to do another experiment (properly employing the scientific method) and arrive at the conclusion that disproves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then it stands disproved and false. A single scientist and a single experiment (which needs to be checked and validated insuring the methodology is accurate) can disprove the other 999,999. That is science. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. That is how most scientists would describe science to be. If the experiment by the 1 scientist were valid then my answer to you would be a resounding, “Yes, a single scientist contrary conclusion would count as a veto.” If, on the other hand, the experiment by that same scientist were shown to be fallacious, erroneous, etc, then my answer would be a resounding, “NO! If it isn’t good science, then the resultant conclusion is unreliable and therefore the point is moot.”

But if that single scientist were to be excluded from the process, then the 999,999 are still not correct, even if they don’t know it. Truth is not dependant upon our understanding or awareness of it, nor is it defined by majority vote or consensus…it simply is what it is.

"Honest evidence and truly objective observation

Evidence that isn't falsified, tampered with, or manipulated to support a foregone conclusion. Also, if evidence is found that would contradict current accepted belief it should be reported, not destroyed, hidden or otherwise altered. The speckled moth hoax, Ernst Haeckel embryologydrawings, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc. are serious breaches of scientific honesty that the average layman will not take the time to question. So, again, let me get this straight: You're saying that if a scientific theory has ever, at any time, had any mistaken or fraudulent evidence offered in support of it, then that automaticallyrules out that theory in your eyes? Again, do you apply this same standard to Christianity? Have you taken into account the hoaxed Jehoash Inscription, the hoaxed James Ossuary, the Shroud of Turin radiocarbon dated to medieval times, the forged Donation of Constantine, the supposed "Noah's Ark" on Mt. Ararat which turned out to be a natural mudflow, creationists falling for April Fool's Day pranks about Neanderthal musical instruments and fossil humans in thejaws of fossil dinosaurs, and the countless pieces of the True Cross, the crown of thorns, and other dubious relics sold by antiquities dealers and collectors? Do all these hoaxes and frauds constitute reason for you not to believe in Christianity?"

No, if a scientific theory has ever at any time had mistakes, or fraudulent evidence offered in support of it, it does not automatically rule out that theory in my eyes.

That being said, if the scientific theory in question has had mistakes, fraud, etc, and continues to perpetuate said mistakes and frauds, then it would cast serious concerns upon said theory. How are we to know if the rest of the evidence is not also fraudulent? I realize that no one is perfect, but the fact is that Ernst Haeckel’s embryology drawings are still in high school and college science textbooks to this day! Why? It is known to be fraudulent, and inaccurate yet it is still promulgated as true. If scientists that support the Theory of Evolution do not loudly and publicly denounce these things, then shame on them, it will give the whole of Science and Scientists a big black eye!

In this instance I do apply this same standard to Christianity, those things that have been shown to be fraudulent, or mistakes should be rectified and denounced loudly, otherwise credibility is lost for those things which can be supported. The end result is a huge black eye for Christianity and Christians. As anyone who knows me can tell you, this type of thing in the Christian community infuriates me! Honestly, if truth be told, I hold Christians and the Christian community to a higher standard in this area than I do others.

The validity of Biblical Christianity does not rest upon frauds after the fact (of which there are many—you listed several). Jesus himself warns of ‘false teachers that are wolves in sheep’s clothing’ that deceive. If a prophet is wrong only a single time, then the Bible says not to listen to anything he has to say. The validity of Biblical Christianity rests upon the claims of the Bible and their conformity to reality. (If the Bible claims the earth to be round (which it does), and it is discovered that the earth is flat, then that would disprove the Biblical claim.)


“Things that need answering
Suitable explanations to phenomena and consistency with other facts/conditions


Something other than… "We don't know now but someday we will…" type of answer. Interesting. Again, do you apply this same standard to Christianity? Do you believe that Christianity is false unless we right now have absolute and total understanding of everything God has ever done or ever will do?”

You make a legitimate point.

I stand corrected and therefore withdraw this as one of my criteria.

I would however ask a question of you in this area.
Would you or would you not agree that (in fairness) many supporters (not you specifically that I have read) of the Theory of Evolution use this criterion against Christianity and call it blind faith? I have read many different blogs and articles etc, and have had conversations with others that have made this exact point against Christians while maintaining this stance on things that we don't know "yet" scientifically, but will some day.

“Explanation of Biblical knowledge of science If someone were to explain how the Bible got so many things right (ie, suspension of earth, shape of earth, ocean currents, fresh water springs in oceans, stars emitting frequencies, lightning associated with rain (not spears from gods), continental drift, canopy effect, 'life in blood', quarantine protocols, health practices, etc.) then it would be easier to dismiss the Bible. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires disbelief in the Bible. Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the Bible contains verses which are miraculous examples of divinely inspired knowledge, that has nothing to do with whether or not evolution is true.”


Except for the fact that the Bible would show that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old, that each animal reproduces after its own kind not evolving from common ancestor, that Adam and Eve were the first humans and weren’t from a long lineage of primates, that the fossil record and rock strata can be explained by a global deluge, etc.

In my opinion, Biblical belief and the Darwinian Theory of Evolution as it is taught are mutually exclusive. That is not to say that there are not portions of the two that do agree and are observable today, however the particle to people evolution that is commonly thought of in today’s world and the Bible are like oil and water…they just don’t mix.


“Truly Observable Evidence Direct Observation

Maybe if someone were to invent time travel or time TV where we could look back into time and have an eyewitness account that wouldn't involve conjecture but true observation of every detail. Okay, fair enough. Do you require the same standard of evidence for Christianity? For example, in order to believe in the literal Garden of Eden, do you first require the invention of a time machine that would permit us to look back into the past and observe creation occur in six twenty-four-hour days with our own eyes? If you use a different standard when it comes to believing in Christianity, why is that?”

First off as I stated in my original response concerning the age of the Earth, I don’t think it can be ‘scientifically proven’.


Secondly, to be honest, no I don’t require the same standard of evidence for Christianity. The “Why” I have already answered; Christianity does not claim to be the result of scientific verification/discovery/research. However, once again that does not preclude a Christian from utilizing the scientific method to determine whether or not there is suitable evidence to support the Biblical assertions of specific events, processes, places and/or people.

As it pertains to the Garden of Eden as a literal place: Literary scholars have found that the Old Testament of the Bible is in fact one of the most accurate ancient literary works in the world as it pertains to geography, historical events, historical figures, genealogies, timelines etc. and has proven to be so through archeology, anthropology, and other disciplines.

When we read about the Garden of Eden, the Bible talks about the geography of the surrounding topography, events that took place there, and individuals that lived within it. The geography speaks of specific rivers, we can locate these still today or know of their location in times past, the topography it speaks of in correspondence to the geography isolates it to a certain region, these alone support the authenticity of such an area existing. So, the next question is where is it. The Biblical account speaks of a Global Deluge (Noah’s Flood). It is reasonable to conclude that such and event would at the very least tainted the “pristine form’ of the Garden, so no-one is going to find an untouched Garden of Eden. This relegates the Garden of Eden to one of those unobservable events, such as creation.

Now take into consideration that most of the genealogies listed in the Old Testament are well supported with the only real criticism being in the alleged age of certain individuals. As such, the individual testimony of those involved in the story (as it was handed down through generations) would seem to be compelling evidence. All of this together makes a reasonable case for belief. While there is a dispute about the age of these individuals, it is significant to point out that every writing of this era speaks of similar life spans. The Hindu Vedas talk about kings that lived for thousands of years.

Some early Christians decided to name certain places as historic sites that turned out not to be the case. For example: Mt. Ararat, where Noah’s arc was said to have landed. Who ever named Mt Ararat did so because they thought it was, but the Biblical description did not match their selection. The Bible says, ‘The mountains in Ararat ”, and gives ‘directions’ that don’t match what has now been labeled Mt. Ararat. Bob Cornuke (1 among many) has done much work on this. Mt. Sinai is another example. (How exactly can 3 million people get lost in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years? The answer is that the mountain in the Sinai Peninsula was named such much later and does not fit the Biblical description. Cornuke (and others) found the real mountain in Iraq and found numerous physical artifacts that support the Biblical account including an altar, artifacts for ceremonies and a dried up lake bed that could have provided water for 3 million people for 9 months.)


In closing, I will admit, that Religion does in the end require Faith. But, in the same breath, I would tender to you…so also does your standpoint on the age of the earth/universe and the unobserved planks of the Theory of Evolution (Neo-Darwinism).

I say this to neither goad nor disparage you in any way, but to simply point out the inconsistency inherent to this line of thought. A postmodern division has occurred wherein one has consigned religion to the sphere of “VALUE” (which takes it out of the realm of true or false) while at the same time purports that ‘non-religion’ or ‘atheism’ through the mechanism of ‘Science’ retains sole ownership of sphere of “FACT”.

Allegedly “Religion” is: Irrational, Non-cognitive, Subjective, and Relative to personal preferences and individual choice, while the other is supposedly: Rational, Verifiable, Objective, Universally Valid Scientific knowledge that is binding on everyone. Yet both require the following:

The willing belief in something that has not/cannot be observed and as such is de facto a firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This in a single word is called FAITH.

Neo-Darwinism (along with many Atheists adherents) calling itself ‘Science’ grabs the label of FACT for itself and relegates the VALUE label to religion. Neo-Darwinism commonly called “Evolutionary science” or simply “Evolution” is put forth as: Binding on everyone.

While Religion is presented as: Relative to personal preference and individual choice.

This thought process, that so pervades Western Society, implies a dichotomy where none exists.

It seems unreasonable and hypocritical (as you put it) to classify one belief system as “Irrational and Subjective” based upon its failure to meet specific criteria, while labeling another belief system “Factual and Objective” that also fails to meet those same criteria.

Looking forward to your response.

Respectfully,

Mark Long

What would convince a Christian...part 2

Well, I must say that it has been an interesting study the past couple of weeks since I replied to Adam Lee on his 'challenge' if one could call it that to post what it would take for a Christian to become an atheist. I posted what I thought was a pretty defintive list, but came to realize that led to a bit of confussion for Mr. Lee. Not that he didn't understand what I was saying, he didn't understand why I objected to what has been widely accepted by mainstream scietists. Here is a copy of his first email to me.

Hello, Before I post about this, I think there are a few points that need clarification. You address issues like the age of the Earth and the existence of transitional fossils. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of practicing scientists would say that the evidence has already decisively settled these points in favor of the mainstream scientific view. Since it seems you're denying that, I'd want to know what additional evidence you'd have to see to change your mind. -Adam

I thought he had a reasonable request, so I obliged him. Of course any of you who have known me for any length of time no, that I don't usually give short answers. Such was the case this time. I wrote him a short novel... ;-) If you would like to know what my response was, I'll be glad to send it to you. Yet, to my chagrin, Mr. Lee emailed me again. Here is a copy of his second email to me.


Hello Mark, I read your e-mail, but it didn't answer the question I asked. I can assure you that I'm familiar with the usual creationist arguments,having heard them many times before. My specific question was this:Since you don't accept the age of the Earth or the theory of evolution as currently put forward by science, despite the evidence that has been offered, what additional evidence would it take for you to accept that the scientific consensus is correct and that your views are wrong? Please describe this hypothetical evidence in as much detail as you can. -Adam

So, I took a little time to really think about what it would take. I really wanted to answer his question. It has been a little longer than I would have liked to take, but it deserved my full attention. Not to mention everyone in the house being sick for the last week or so...

Anyway, here is my latest response to Mr. Lee, I sent it to him just prior to making this post:

Adam,
First let me apologize for the length of time it has taken me to reply to you. I have been ill lately and just haven’t felt like doing anything. Also, I apologize for not answering your questions completely.

As to the age of the earth and the theory of evolution:
Please let me know if you don’t completely understand why I don’t accept the current consensus by mainstream scientists.

What evidence would I need, what would it look like, and what would disqualify it?

Truly Observable Evidence

Direct Observation

Maybe if someone were to invent time travel or time TV where we could look back into time and have an eyewitness account that wouldn’t involve conjecture but true observation of every detail.

Genuine particle to people evolution occurring before our eyes
If someone were to figure out a way to accelerate the evolutionary process from billions of years to a few days or weeks and we could observe the full course of evolution right before our eyes. This would have to be with minimal to no interference and in the real world not the virtual world. Documented spontaneous generation in an observable format would be very compelling.

Origin of Information
Observation of how specificity (specifically complex specificity) came to be along with answers to the following:

How did genetic code come to be encoded and how is the code understood and ‘upgraded’ and then passed on?
Where did it come from to begin with?

In essence, even if we have a computer system (evolution), where did the software (genetic code) come from?
How does the computer understand the software?
What guarantees that each computer (out of billions on the earth) all speak the same language?
How would they communicate and make more computers with more advanced software and programming?

Maybe we meet a trans-dimensional alien programmer who fesses up to imparting the complex specificity of language, genetics, physics, etc to the universe.—but then…where did he come from…?

Genuine observation and explanation of how an organism acquires new information
If there was an observable and repeatable process that clearly demonstrates how a life form can both alter its physical makeup and also imprint the alterations upon its genetic code to pass on to future generations, then I would take evolution more seriously. What I am looking for here is a gain of genetic information not something that only allows for information already in the code.

Radiation induced genetic mutation that doesn’t produce a breakdown in the genetic structure, but rather add new and beneficial information/structure.

Genuine, repeatable and observable evolutionary mutation/transition from water breathing/dwelling to air breathing/land dwelling life forms would be compelling. It would need to be demonstrated that all the changes be simultaneous (or the organism would die and could not pass on the info) or show how the organism could pass on information prior to death. This evidence would be highly compelling if it could show how the gradual slow evolutionary process could produce mutations that would deal with salt containment, locomotion, reproduction, suspension of weight and lung development simultaneously.

Consistent Evidence

Non-Conflicting Evidence
All evidence supporting age of the earth and theory of evolution must be non-contradictory, non-circular, and not inter-dependant. For example archeologists dating artifacts age by the rock strata it is found in, then geologists dating rock strata based upon the age of artifacts that are found in it. Silly example but you take my point.

Uniform Evidence
If the theory of evolution is true, then it should have explanations that are consistent in all scientific disciplines and areas of life including philosophical venues. (i.e. morality, ethics, rape, murder, molestation, religion, politics, information origin, etc.) All these types things should be able to be explained using the process of evolutionary theory without conjecture or undocumented supposition.

Concurrent, Honest, and Unbiased Evidence

Evidence without internal arguments or divisions
Conclusive evidence agreed upon by ALL scientists, not just a consensus of the majority of mainstream scientists. It seems reasonable to expect that if the evidence supporting the age of the earth to be billions of years old or the theory of evolution were true, then it would be agreeable to only one interpretation.

Honest evidence and truly objective observation
Evidence that isn’t falsified, tampered with, or manipulated to support a foregone conclusion. Also, if evidence is found that would contradict current accepted belief it should be reported, not destroyed, hidden or otherwise altered. The speckled moth hoax, Ernst Haeckel embryology drawings, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, etc. are serious breaches of scientific honesty that the average layman will not take the time to question.

Unbiased Review of Evidence
Peer reviewed papers and publications that publish all degreed scientists without being biased against or for the individuals solely because of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof) or earlier conclusions. Right now, only those that toe the line philosophically get taken seriously, not based upon their work, but upon their commitment to the ‘official position’. Currently if it can happen with the Noble Prize it can and does happen in other areas of the scientific community. See this article about Dr. Raymond V. Damadian for further explanation. (He was denied the Nobel Prize for work with the MRI...even though he (mostly) developed it and the 2 that did win in that area were astonished becasue their work was based on his...he's a creationist btw)

The following are not necessarily linchpins for me, however I thought they were worth asking about.

Things that need answering

Suitable explanations to phenomena and consistency with other facts/conditions
Something other than… “we don’t know now but someday we will…” type of answer.

How did the polonium radio halos get trapped in metamorphic rock if the half-life is less than a second?
By what process did the baby wooly mammoth in Fairbanks get frozen in a running position and preserved without cell damage (the meat was still good)?
Why weren’t evolutionary clocks reset by natural disasters? (Global deluge would wipe out non aquatic life forms, as would meteors, Ice Ages, etc., and so it would be ‘back to the drawing board’ for these lines; but Uniformitarianism is crucial to evolution)
How does evolution account for migratory habits of arctic terns (without which over 40 other life forms would die)?
Why are there so many backup systems for migratory fowl?
How did altruism arise through natural selection?
How did religion and religious institutions survive natural selection?
How did the concepts of fairness and compassion survive natural selection?


Explanation of Biblical knowledge of science
If someone were to explain how the Bible got so many things right (ie, suspension of earth, shape of earth, ocean currents, fresh water springs in oceans, stars emitting frequencies, lightning associated with rain (not spears from gods), continental drift, canopy effect, ‘life in blood’, quarantine protocols, health practices, etc.) then it would be easier to dismiss the Bible.

I hope this answers your question satisfactorily. I tried to take the time to really think about what it would take for me to change my stance. This response is not total, there are other questions I would have still, but they would be questions, not necessarily objections.

Thanks for your patience.
Mark Long

What would convince a Christian that atheism is true?

Recently I was surfing the net and came across a page called “Ebon Musings: The Atheism Pages” and in particular one page entitled: “The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists, What would convince an atheist a religion is true”. The author astutely points out that most ‘theists’ rely heavily on the “F-word” faith when asked; “…what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist…”? They don’t have any reason to even think they might be wrong. I find this ironic since every Christian I know will readily attest to being fallible, imperfect and not having all knowledge. Yet they think that they couldn’t be wrong and misplace our faith.

The author also goes on to state: “To be fair, I invite all theists to respond by preparing a list of things that they would accept as proof that atheism is true. If any theist prepares such a list, posts it on the Internet and tells me about it, I'll link to it from this page.”

That is what this post is about; I want to post those things that must be proven for me to convert to atheism (which I define in most cases as the religion of naturalism). So here we go, and I apologize to everyone for the length of this post. But you should be used to it by now. Also, I would like to reference the article on our website The Reality Check entitled The Fundamentalist Dogma of Atheism. I quote many areas from this article in this post, since Darren and I wrote this and it is on our website, I did not include quotation marks in this post for things on our site.

In the following criteria I will use the phrase “scientifically prove” often. I want to define what this means in each instance so as to avoid over-lengthy explanation on each point yet avoid confusion from the start. When I say “scientifically prove(n)” I mean: The 5 points of the scientific method must be used correctly and in order without the exclusion of any point. The conclusion(s) must take into consideration the possibility of a non-naturalistic event (to be truly objective).

1. The universe is self-existing and self creating.

If this can be scientifically proven without violating Physical Laws such as the Law of Conservation Mass, the Law of Conservation Charge, the Law of Conservation Momentum, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, then I would convert to atheism.

2. The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.

If this can be scientifically proven without enormous mathematical extrapolation over colossal spans of unobserved time, then I would convert to atheism.

3. Life began as the result of spontaneous generation.

If this can be scientifically proven then I would convert to atheism. However, at this point scientists can’t even agree as to what the conditions were on pre-life Earth, the only “evidence” has been the production of certain amino acids (the building blocks of life) yet those amino acids produced had to be immediately quarantined from the environment that ‘created’ them because it was so toxic to them it would have destroyed them in seconds.

4. Mankind is the result of organic evolution.

If beneficial mutation and transition can be scientifically proven, then I will convert to atheism. The problems here are that scientists have yet to produce any beneficial result by random radiation induced genetic mutation and there is not even one credible transitional fossil. Not to mention the problems of irreducible complexity and the origin of information. Also, I would caution anyone using punctuated equilibrium as proof to not do so; it is circular logic at best and very bad science at worst. The postulation that we don’t see transitional fossils because every so often evolution makes rapid advances instead of the slow modification inherent to the theory flies in the face of reason and the very theory it alleges to support. The lack of evidence (transitional fossils) cannot be evidence.

“…The term “missing link” is misleading because it suggests that only one link is missing whereas it is more accurate to state that so many links are missing that it is not evident whether there was ever a chain.” Anthony Standen, Science is a Sacred Cow. 1950 E.P. Dutton, New York

5. Morality is an artificial construct.

If the origin of morality can be proven (verifiably) as a derivative of nature and not in conflict with natural selection or survival of the fittest and if history can show this pattern as true, then I will convert to atheism.

The problem here beings with the fact that no atheist can pinpoint the actual beginning of man’s morality, there is no definitive evidence to examine. Also, for every single time in history when societies abandoned the absolute standards of religion so that they could mettle it out themselves, the result was brutal tyranny and barbaric atrocities. This was made clear from Rome to revolutionary France to Nazi Germany to South Africa.

That is not to say that religion is free from bloodshed (Crusades and Inquisition) but in only one century, from 1900 to 2000, the death tally from non religious atheists (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) killing religious groups exceeded one hundred and twenty million.

__________________________________________

Now I don’t know what kind of response I will get from the author, but I truly hope (and honestly expect due to his behavior thus far) that if discourse does begin, that it can be civil and avoid some of the name calling that is so prevalent in this category of debate. I also would like to say that I am glad that this author hasn’t (to my knowledge) used the argument that theists and atheists only disagree on one thing. Supposedly while atheists disbelieve in all deities, the argument is that Christians (theists) disbelieve in all except the Judeo-Christian God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is simply not true and is even verifiable in scripture that other ‘gods’ exist and are not to be worshipped. Etc. etc. If there is further communication betwixt the author and myself, I will try to post it here to let everyone know.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

See ya.