Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
What is a FACT?
I was chatting with a very enthusiastic evolutionary atheist a while ago. Here was his claim:"We have boxes filled with many fossils that prove evolution is a FACT."
What he should have said is:
"It is a fact that i'm claiming this box is filled with possible evolutionary fossils."
But after millions of people hear that first bit repeated a few thousand times in text books - they buy it with out checking it in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.
It is true that we very often accept testimony straight into our thoughts without considering that our actual perception is not what they are saying, but that they are saying it.It is definitely something important to keep in mind.
Ok, Rod, there are no facts. 2 + 2 = 4, but only with stipulations. Two sticks of dynamite and two lighted matches equal one big explosion, not four. Well, then, they have to be "like" objects which immediately brings a chorus of "what's a like object?" So forget it, it isn't a fact 2 + 2 = 4, nor is the sum of the angles of a triangle equal to 180 degrees except in plane geometry which doesn't exist because everything has depth. Facts, schmacks, phooey!
I actually agree with Rod. We DO use the word "fact" to describe anything that is proven conclusively enough that learned people don't doubt. I use it that way, too.But I am happier with probabilities. But we can still talk in meaningful comparisons. For example, the odds of an old earth are smaller than the odds of a spherical earth, and are greater than the odds of God's existence; surely 99% of us can agree on that.
Count me amongst the 1% on that one. Talk is cheap. Let's see how you calculated those odds.
Unless you think that just making up odds and throwing them out there makes them correct.
I'm not calculating. I'm simply guessing that any rational person would agree. Where would you put the odds of those three statements, Antipodes?
I made no claim of odds, you did. I take it you cannot back them up, which does not surprise me. In keeping with the subject of this thread I could offer that it is a fact that you have not substantiated the validity of the odds you proclaimed.
Lee wrote: "I actually agree with Rod. We DO use the word "fact" to describe anything that is proven conclusively enough that learned people don't doubt. I use it that way, too.But I am happier with probabil..."
Lee, could you tell me how you came up with these probabilities?
To me demonstrating that 2+2=4 is in a completely different category than estimating the age of the earth or the cosmos.
Thank you Antipodes and Peter for your rational objections to Lee's flippant dogmatism--he is pretty good at throwing out "odds" in your face, aren't you Lee!
Gosh, these odds using strictly empirical data (no Beliefs) are really pretty easy: Odds for an old earth: 99%
Odds for a new earth: 1%
Odds for God's existence, by
rational proof alone: 60% and rising
Kudos to Robert for estimating odds. I would put the odds of an old earth closer to 99.99% and the odds of a creator's existence at closer to 80%. The odds of a spherical earth would be higher than both.If you're curious, for me the odds of a God who matches all the opinions written in the Bible would be about .001% I suppose.
I guess the question boils down to, do you let religious belief sway you in rational odds-setting? Unless someone immerses themselves in fundamentalist literature, to the exclusion of reading anything rational, it's surely impossible for nearly every educated person to consider the odds of an old earth at less than, say, 98%, right? I mean, honestly? And wouldn't 99 out of 100 people--again, if they are honest--admit the odds of God's existence is less than 98%?
I know I'm more skeptical than most, but I would hope for some rationality here. Please read my post, and in particular the word "surely," indicating a guess; not a claim. It baffles me that my estimate that 99% would agree with me is met with such resistance ... what kind of group have I gotten myself into?
I am totally fascinated by this. We have some very intelligent people here. I'd love to see some odds; prove me wrong in how you feel.1. Odds that the earth is young.
2. Odds that Jesus rose from the dead.
3. Odds that the Bible describes the creation (however you interpret it).
4. Odds that Moses parted the sea.
Is anybody gutsy enough to set beliefs aside and lay out an honest estimate?
If we spoke only facts, this forum would not exist. Most of us are interested in discussing things that can never be considered facts by Rod's definition. In fact, I'd say 99.999% of us are. ;)
Speculative odds make as much sense as 'about 100%'. Stuff and nonsense.
I disagree 99% lol. What possible good is a belief if you cannot even comparatively estimate its truth? May I say I believe in God if I am only 51% certain of his existence? Or must I be 99.99 sure? A person who can't even reason through his beliefs is either lazy or a liar.
I think your questions are easy, Lee, I'm not sure why you're geting such resistance.1. 1%
2. 100%
3. 100%
4. 100%
Really, Robert? That's truly fascinating.I don't think I'll ever understand religion. Such utter certainty may be the most frightening thing on the earth.
1. I don't believe in time.2. I don't believe in probability.
3. There is a 100% chance that the Bible describes the creation...
4. Trick question!
It's not religion you don't understand, it's Faith. For Christian Faith #2 must be true. #2 implies miracles so that opens the door to #4, and God had a vested interest in His chosen people. Scientific research tells me there is no logical explanation for creation (back to something from nothing) so #3 is the last explanation possible. Elementary, my dear Watson.
So, I am somewhat confused at the moment, and that is a fact. It may be inferred from the grammatical structure of the previous sentence that my confusion is subjective, and that's a fact. I was, and still am, under the impression that the subject of this thread is 'What is a FACT?' IF our effort is indeed to explore the nature of just exactly what determines whether or not anything can be agreed upon to be objectively factual, I would begin with that a fact must have happened, must be of and in the past tense. That would leave Jake in the unenviable position (while not believing in time) of living in a world without fact, and that's a fact.
So, stipulation #1:A fact must, and can only, describe something in the past.
Agreed, or no?
No, Antipodos - the Universe is dying a very slow thermodynamic death. Sometime in the future it will run out of the requisite energy and collapse. That's a future fact. But back to time again - no astrophysicist has a solid prediction as to when.
Yes facts describe what happened, or what exists now. Evolution may qualify as a fact, or the earth going around the sun may qualify as a fact, but 2+2=4 is not a fact, it is a mathematical truth.
I'm not sure I agree, Robert. That is merely a prediction.
Robert wrote: "It's not religion you don't understand, it's Faith. For Christian Faith #2 must be true. #2 implies miracles so that opens the door to #4, and God had a vested interest in His chosen people. Scient..."Yes, you are probably correct. I don't understand blind belief (what you call faith), it's frightening.
What if God told you to hijack a plane and fly it into a tower? What if God told you that a nation of people were fit only for the gas chamber? What if God told you that a collection of people, because of their sexuality, deserved only scorn and should be denied a life of love and happiness? You would have zero ability to reason your way out of it. That's frightening.
That's schizophrenia, Lee - I don't have blind faith and am perfectly in control of my mental faculties. I just have a better Master in dealing with the rest of humanity than my own ego.
@Robert - hate to bust your bubble, but there is nothing like a consensus amongst astrophysicists for what you claim as a 'fact' for the future of the universe. Do you live in a world of 'fact' that others are not privy to? Or perhaps you can educate me with a source for your information. Or do you, like Lee, just throw things out there, say its a fact, and that IS your proof?
Antipodes, you are putting words in my mouth. AS I recall, you are among those unable to even contemplate your fallibility. Another 1%er whose faith stifles his reason.
Antipodes - there are many schools of physics and I have my favorites. Among those I admire and lend credence to exhibit the thoughts on thermodynamic erosion I presented. If you belong to another school of thought, fine, but I'm NOT just throwing things out there.
@Robert - that' just my point - if there are two schools of thought we are obviously in the realm of theory or opinion. Opinion is NOT fact. It may be, and is, a fact that my opinion as to the veracity of your opinion is not a fact, but just my opinion. And your opinion as to the veracity of a theory of the future state of the universe is your opinion, NOT a fact. Can we agree on that?
@Lee - Now I AM confused. Where did I state that I am infallible?
So, stipulation #1:A fact must, and can only, describe something in the past.
Agreed, or no?
Antipodes wrote: "@Lee - Now I AM confused. Where did I state that I am infallible?"I took your "about 100%" certainty literally. Maybe I misunderstood; if so, I apologize.
Yeah, that was a follow up to the prior entry. Put together it would have been - 'there are about 100% odds that odds are not facts.' Just for the record, I am highly fallible, we all are highly fallible. It would seem to be the human condition.
Antipodes - this is getting kinda fun and a bit philosophical. By the nature of certain phenomenon being in the future, all cannot see the obvious because it's not visible. So something might be a fact, but not be universally recognized as so. Let's face it hindsight can be enjoyed by all, but only the visionary forsee future "facts". Now, I'm sold by my astrophysicists on their theory so regard it as "fact", but, until it happens, it can't be recorded as such, and when it happens, no one will be around to record it. Does this make any sense?
Antipodes - I suppose I could simplistically refute you by stating "in the United States, tomorrow is Saturday, March 29", but I'd prefer an example a little more dazzling than that.
@Robert - you are correct, this discussion thread is quite interesting. Part of the difficulty in having serious, meaningful discussions lies in agreed upon definitions of common terms, without which we often end up talking past one another without adequate idea transference. That is why I like this thread - a simple, focused, point of discussion - 'What is a FACT?' Now, as to tomorrow being whatever day and date of the calendar is next, I see many difficulties pertaining to a claim of 'fact' for such a prediction. But let's just pick one. Prior to the turn of midnight the earth encounters a hypernova gamma ray burst and all life as we know it is wiped out, pretty much instantaneously. Since the calendar, date, day, and even tomorrow are human concepts, they no longer exist. What if the nova is our sun? No earth, no rotation - no predictive 'fact'. Not by my definition. High probability is not fact, it is high probability.
It is my contention that a fact must, and can only, refer to a past event.
Antipodes wrote: "It is my contention that a fact must, and can only, refer to a past event."When I look up 'fact' in the Oxford English Dictionary then it states: "a thing that is known to have occurred, to exist, or to be true." In this sense, 'fact' not only refers to data (which everyone can evaluate) but also a cognitive evaluation of how compelling the data is. In other words conviction occurs in the mind of the beholder and that's why our views may vary even when we look at the same data.
Antipodes, I think 'data' occur in the past since they are observational events. Even then, there are two types of distinct past data events: those that are time independent, such as the melting point of camphor, (since I can remeasure it and get the same melting point - this enables personal verification), and those that are not e.g. Tycho Brahe reporting a nova in the sky, in which case I have to take Brahe's word for it (taking Brahe's word for it is what Christians generally call faith).
So, I would say data refers to past events. A fact is data evaluated through a cognitive filter and is to some extent dependent on the perspective of the evaluator. One caveat: since fact is linked to truth by the definition, I may think something is a fact, but my faulty conclusion may not be linked to reality and so be untrue.
Antipodes, perhaps you're using 'fact' as synonymous with 'data?'
I would not say synonymous. But I do agree that 'fact' can only describe the phenomenological, in the scientific sense of phenomenology - relating observations of phenomena to one another.It would be a fact that Tycho Brahe has been reported to have reported seeing a nova in the sky. I may choose to believe that report or not. All 'truth' is subjective and we must each choose which mutually agreed upon truth we believe. Truth is 'fuzzy', fact is not.
An individual action is not a fact until after it has transpired. The term 'truth' can only be applied to an agreement that has already occurred. Those are both past-tense events.
I can predict that I will complete a particular task before I do so, but it is not a fact that I did it until after I have done it.
Peter wins the PRIZE. I was waiting to see how long it is before someone brings up the dictionary definition of Fact. :cD
Great stuff Antipodes. That is what my concerns are.
My street smarts version would say: "Facts are truths that we all agree upon."
Facts require human understanding and agreement? Given the existence of the Flat Earth Society, that means it is not a fact that the earth orbits the sun.
I agree that there are always total morons who will doubt absolutely anything. I have chatted with folks who do not think we actually exist...I wonder what happens when a flat earth group member questions the groups assumptions? Are there flat earth geologists or and flat earther's that desire to be astronauts? Or a flat earth sailor for that matter? Any flat earthers in the military, or possible airplane pilots?
My guess is you have to basically hide in MOMMY'S basement, and keep the tv turned off, to remain a flat earther.
Here is the problem:
I keep hearing this word FACT thrown around. And often it is horribly abused. Even by some of you.
Is it a FACT that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old? Many would cheerfully scream "YESSSSS!"
Now to carefully use the word FACT (properly)we can safely say: "it's a fact that a few scientists state the Earth is 4.5 billion years old."
Anytime we play with dating methods - we must not put the cart before the horse. The most obvious fact is: scientists play with many dating methods.
dating methods don't factually reproduce empirical data.
nobody waits around 4.5 billion years to observe their empirical data to verify their FACT.
FACT: scientists use many many methods of dating things.
FACT: scientists are aware that dating methods give many different dates.
FACT: scientists prefer certain dates - and dispose of methods that go against their preconceived dates. (this is no secret.)
Here's another fun one:
FACT: electricity exists and works accordingly and test-ably (as does gravity)
FACT: evolution is claimed to work and species still remain specific species.
Every time I hear the word evolution I hear the word FACT thrown up-on it. But it's always the cart before the horse.
Bones are a fact, dating methods are a fact, evolution is a assumption that I can NOT TEST or recreate.
And this of course applies to a young or old EARTH. If someone recreates the planet in real time and then shows it - I will declare that a proven and testable FACT.