Dr W please look at Des News article on Science and Religion

[_MrStakhanovite]

The faith of a scientist is based on the assumption (unprovable, but assumed to be true) of materialism.

This is simply wrong.

Methodological Naturalism is an epistemic position that the natural world is best studied under natural means, it makes no statement about the existence of anything supra natural.

Materialism is a metaphysical belief.

Do not conflate the two.

[_Gadianton]

Hughes is yet another sample point demonstrating the article linked is bunk.

It is in fact rare to encounter TBMs who really accept evolution. It has been my experience that those who don't outright denounce, knowing how weak their position is, argue that it's compatible with the gospel but believe it is riddled with holes and are quick to run to Stephen J and have a meltdown about the ideoligical failures of human institutions, not being well-versed at all in the science itself. 99 percent of TBMs would love to see evolution fail.

[_Hughes]

This new study concludes that the first-known hunters in North America can now be dated back at least 14,000 years.

It is the finding and analysis of a tip from a human-made projectile point (spearhead) gathered from the remains of a mastodon that is behind the rewriting of North American prehistory. The spearhead, which itself was carved out from a mastodon-bone, was found at the Manis site in the state of Washington when archaeologists excavated a mastodon in the late 1970s.

However, 30 years would pass before a team of researchers was able to put a date on the spearhead and establish the identity of both the bone and the spearhead that had been embedded into the rib of the defeated mastodon. This was done through, amongst other things, DNA analysis, protein sequencing, advanced computer technology, Carbon-14 dating as well as comparisons with other mastodon findings in North America, for instance in the state of Wisconsin.
(Science Daily October 2011)

I'm confused, does this support a faith based scientific belief or a materialist based scientific belief or a religious faith based belief?

Given what you quoted, it supports all sorts of belief systems. I say both the materialist, and religious based. Though some might dispute the dates.

[_Hughes]

This is simply wrong.

Methodological Naturalism is an epistemic position that the natural world is best studied under natural means, it makes no statement about the existence of anything supra natural.

Materialism is a metaphysical belief.

Do not conflate the two.

The difference between "best studied under natural means..." and the faith commitment that is Materialism, is a difference of degree. They are on the same sliding scale.

The result of this faith commitment, are the statements of faith, such as "Evolution is a fact of history."

[_MrStakhanovite]

a difference of degree. They are on the same sliding scale.

It's a categorical difference.

The result of this faith commitment, are the statements of faith, such as "Evolution is a fact of history."

That is a poor definition of faith.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Another point I want to make is that materialism doesn't rule out Christianity either, Peter VanInwagen is a Christian and one of the most brilliant advocates of materialism to date.

[_Hughes]

Hughes is yet another sample point demonstrating the article linked is bunk.

It is in fact rare to encounter TBMs who really accept evolution. It has been my experience that those who don't outright denounce, knowing how weak their position is, argue that it's compatible with the gospel but believe it is riddled with holes and are quick to run to Stephen J and have a meltdown about the ideoligical failures of human institutions, not being well-versed at all in the science itself. 99 percent of TBMs would love to see evolution fail.

Just to let you know, I'm not LDS, nor have ever been. Moved to SLC, and desired to learn more, and am now banned from the MDD board... oh well, I guess they didn't like me disagreeing with them all the time.

[_Hughes]

a difference of degree. They are on the same sliding scale.

It's a categorical difference.

The result of this faith commitment, are the statements of faith, such as "Evolution is a fact of history."

That is a poor definition of faith.

Statements of faith sound the same.

Evolution is a fact of history....

or

God created the Universe....

Another point I want to make is that materialism doesn't rule out Christianity either, Peter VanInwagen is a Christian and one of the most brilliant advocates of materialism to date.

I hadn't heard of him, thanks. After a few minutes of reading up on him, it appears he claims to be a materialist and a Christian. I'm still curious how he can believe in a spiritual being, yet think that all that exists is only material?

None of the above changes my major point. That all people, scientists or not have a faith commitment of some sort. Or to put it another way, all people at some point have at the beginning of their philosophy, assumptions about the universe that can't be demonstrated using science.

[_Gadianton]

Statements of faith sound the same.

Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe.

Blessed are they who have seen -- yet took philosophy 101 and doubt the possibility of knowledge, for their faith is just as great.

Blessed are everyone, since as it turns out, any position can be argued to be a position of faith.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Statements of faith sound the same.

Evolution is a fact of history....

or

God created the Universe....

Both are just propositions, but you are trying to say that since both sound “100% certain” and because no one could be “100% certain” about Evolution or God, then it follows that both propositions require some kind of “faith” to cover the gap between what we know now and 100% certain.

All this achieves is making faith mundane and common place, and of course it follows that since gaps between what we know now and what is certain and true can be covered by “faith”, we should know much less than we do now so we can have more faith.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think Christianity should be described as actively promoting ignorance to create virtue, for surely faith is a virtue, yes?