Evolution v Creationism

[Askthepizzaguy]

You shall be added to a very long list of people who have argued with Reenk about something and made zero headway reaching any sort of common ground.

I admire his ability to argue, but at times I have no idea what he is talking about, or what precisely he is getting at. He seems to be saying that you cannot prove anything and that it takes belief to have evidence, therefore everything is exactly the same as religion and there's no difference between religion and science. He says, if I remember correctly, that that is NOT what he is arguing, but that's the best I can come up with. I freely admit, I haven't a clue what he's on about sometimes. He may one day be up there with the greatest philosophers of all time, arguing about metaphysics and whatnot and defeating people or drawing countless debates over definitions and demarcations and all kinds of proofs and rebuttals until the opposition loses the will to argue.

In the end, it's almost like he's arguing there is no difference between hot and cold, because cold does not exist. It is all simply levels of how much heat energy there is... there's no negative force, just positive. So in the metaphorical sense, science and religion are the same because they both rely on various amounts of "faith" as he defines it.

However, science requires very few assumptions, such as "I exist" and "other things exist, and I can prove it to a reasonable degree", which are assumptions every single sane person on this planet makes. So they are hardly incredible assumptions which must be dismissed. Religion and faith require assumptions such as

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"God's name is Jehovah and he exists everywhere at once while being invisible and watches everything you do and is a force of good and mercy and compassion but he does nothing to stop war or genocides and he will burn you forever and ever in a burning pit of agony should you fail to exercise the free will that he gave you and the mind that he gave you and the independent spirit that he gave you to question the assumptions of men in funny robes and hats who claim to talk to God, because it's absolutely for sure that they know what they talk about but the man on the street corner who babbles about God doesn't know what he's talking about at all because that's somehow different from Revelation and of course the earth was created in 6 days and an all-powerful God needs to rest once a week and likes animal sacrifice and will destroy the earth using an ARMY someday rather than just poofing the evil out of existence like a God would and he must physically capture satan and put him in the lake of fire because somehow with his infinite Q-like power he can't just obliterate Satan using his mind."

To be fair, that's a bit more of an assumption to make than "If I see the ground, feel it, hear things impact it, smell the flowers on it, and taste the fruit that comes from it, it might, just might, be real."

It's a bit of a leap to suggest that the scientific method is on the same level of assumption as religion. And, religion does not blink in the face of massive evidence to the contrary, whereas science, in order to be credible, must revise the theory.

Note how Rhyfelwyr "knows" that God exists. He has no proof and there is no reason for him to know this scientifically. It is a belief, and he erroneously uses the word "know" instead of "believe" as if to put this "special" knowledge on a higher pedestal than stuff he hears, smells, tastes, sees, touches, and feels. It's much better knowledge because it requires no proof whatsoever, and doesn't rely on the senses or even intuitive logic. Much of what his God does is rather counter-intuitive, like his Word being divine, but he is also capable of lying to people. How does that work? Does his lie become true when he speaks it? Can he simply override his previous truth and make it a lie? What's the deal with that? This "special" knowledge that believers refer to is not knowledge by any definition I can find or think of, not one that we commonly agree on, nor use as a scientific definition.

You cannot compare scientific theory with "spiritual knowledge" because they don't exist as anything related to the other in any way, shape, or form. However, because science yes involves the belief that we exist... Reenk can correctly say it is a form of belief. However I think that whitewashes science and faith as being the same thing when they are polar opposites. The energy from fusion at the center of a star is much hotter than the background radiation of the universe, in the extreme. However, both are forms of energy. Faith involves so numerous and so counter-intuitive assumptions that it is the reason it's classified as belief, not knowledge. Science involves assumptions so basic and so self-evident that it not only doesn't require much in terms of belief, on the contrary it challenges all assumptions, all data, all theories, and all methods, but the few assumptions that we make in order to call it science are so essential to sane living in this universe, that if you countered those assumptions, you'd be liable to die pretty quickly and have your radical theories disproved by the force of a Mack truck hitting your face.

The more unfounded and unreasonable the assumption, and the more of these types of assumptions you make, the less likely it is for it to be true. I'd refer people to my Fire-Breathing Leprechaun in a Magic Box theory of existence... it's not science because it's based on nothing but assumptions and wild and counter-intuitive statements which are in direct contradiction of the scientific method or any system of self-evident logic. However, it's in the same category of knowledge as any other religion, because the evidence that it could be true (you can't disprove it) is once again, the primary argument in its defense.

I do find it interesting that Reenk feels he is being intentionally misrepresented... frankly I don't see it. I do believe that people are honestly, and without spite or any other motivation, simply misunderstanding what you're saying, why you're saying it, and what relevance it has to anything if it puts everything under the label "belief", and in such a case there's no point in arguing anything because you can always disagree without giving a reason besides "that's YOUR opinion."

I find it to be radical skepticism, not legitimate theory, but Reenk has disagreed that that is his position, and instead asks his debate opponents to "prove" certain things in order to prove their case, and when they fail to "prove" that science is not the same as belief under his definitions, he declares the argument won. That is what appears to be going on, to me, but once again I have probably misinterpreted his positions. However, I will never understand his positions, so forgive me if this is the best I can come up with; I feel it is pretty darn close.

Under Reenk's standards of proofs, there is no proof of anything nor is it possible to prove anything because it relies on "metaphysical assumptions" he disagrees with and "sensory perception" which he apparently also disagrees with. As such, there is no point in the argument because eventually, you will have to make a metaphysical assumption or a sensory perception to prove a thing, or a logically self-evident and non-contradictory statement, and in all cases, it will not be enough because it all involves some shred of belief, and therefore invalidates it under Reenk's standard of proof.

As such, I haven't a clue how to argue with him. And I don't fully understand his argument, so he can over and over, correctly, point out how what I am saying doesn't quite respond to what he wants me to respond to, or satisfy his standards, or claim that it is a misinterpretation and it isn't what he means. Yet he fails to dumb down the argument so I can keep up with and respond to his arguments, so I once again sit baffled and can't really debate him. But at the same time, I feel he does demand an unreasonable standard of proof and is radical in his position that science is on the same level as faith, based on reasonable definitions of both. But he claims that isn't what he's arguing, and so I am lost and we make no headway.

It's a vicious little circle. I still think that somewhere, somehow, there is a loose end which if tugged, proves that such thinking unravels all reasonable thought and undermines the existence of knowledge at all, and if followed to it's logical conclusion, would destroy the human mind as we know it. As such, even if it were somehow true, there would be no point in believing in it because it would be wholly destructive and disconnect us from the ability to live together in a civilized and enlightened society, because we could never agree on laws or ethics or have any frame of reference from which to build the ability to communicate.

But that's probably a strawman or something, and as such, I respectfully withdraw it and apologize. There's a reason I stayed out of this one until now, and would be happy to bow out once again.

Faith (creationism/religion) versus reason (science); we had this debate already. I made a strong case for reason, and demonstrated using my opponent's own words that they undermine their own arguments and the logical conclusion of their argument is the destruction of reason, and as such, absolute faith is incompatible with reason and inherently dangerous. However, my opponents simply disagree and argue using different definitions and avoid my points, and as such, there is no progress to be made.

This topic, creationism versus evolution, at least focuses on two different specific theories, but the underlying argument is the SAME. Faith does not rely on evidence, and exists in spite of evidence. Science is a different animal entirely, but some compare the two as equals and call one a scientific theory when it is not, and the other a religious theory when it is not. Because we are comparing apples to unicorns, there will be no common ground, no consensus, and no forward progress for the human mind. The discussion was a dead end before it began... religion is not science and religious theories are not based in science and cannot be compared to science. They are different things.

If I said one thing weighed 200 pounds and you countered that pineapples are juicy, I doubt that we would be talking about the same thing and while I am arguing about weight and you are arguing about juicy, we will make no headway. It's a fruitless exercise, no pun intended.