Here is a very insightful article from Ken Ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way. (My note: You've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.")
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
As a teacher, I found that whenever I taught the students what I thought were the ‘facts’ for creation, then their other teacher would just re-interpret the facts. The students would then come back to me saying, ‘Well sir, you need to try again.’
However, when I learned to teach my students how we interpret facts, and how interpretations are based on our presuppositions, then when the other teacher tried to reinterpret the facts, the students would challenge the teacher’s basic assumptions. Then it wasn’t the students who came back to me, but the other teacher! This teacher was upset with me because the students wouldn’t accept her interpretation of the evidence and challenged the very basis of her thinking.
What was happening was that I had learned to teach the students how to think rather than just what to think. What a difference that made to my class! I have been overjoyed to find, sometimes decades later, some of those students telling me how they became active, solid Christians as a result.
Debate terms
If one agrees to a discussion without using the Bible as some people insist, then they have set the terms of the debate. In essence these terms are:
1.‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
2. Truth can/should be determined independent of God. However, the Bible states: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Psalm 111:10); ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Proverbs 1:7). ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).
Agreeing to such terms of debate also implicitly accepts their proposition that the Bible’s account of the universe’s history is irrelevant to understanding that history!
Ultimately, God’s Word convicts
1 Peter 3:15 and other passages make it clear we are to use every argument we can to convince people of the truth, and 2 Cor. 10:4–5 says we are to refute error (like Paul did in his ministry to the Gentiles). Nonetheless, we must never forget Hebrews 4:12: ‘For the word of God is living and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing apart of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.’
Also, Isaiah 55:11: ‘So shall My word be, which goes out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall certainly do what I sent it to do.’
Even though our human arguments may be powerful, ultimately it is God’s Word that convicts and opens people to the truth. In all of our arguments, we must not divorce what we are saying from the Word that convicts.
Practical application
When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:
‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’
One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.
Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:
‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’
In arguing this way, a Christian is:
1. Using biblical presuppositions to build a way of thinking to interpret the evidence.
2. Showing that the Bible and science go hand in hand.1
3. Challenging the presuppositions of the other person (many are unaware they have these).
4. Forcing the debater to logically defend his position consistent with science and his own presuppositions (many will find that they cannot do this).
5. Honouring the Word of God that convicts the soul.
Remember, it’s no good convincing people to believe in creation, without also leading them to believe and trust in the Creator/Redeemer, Jesus Christ. God honours those who honour His Word. We need to use God-honouring ways of reaching people with the truth of what life is all about.
Naturalism, logic and reality
Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:
1.A young man approached me at a seminar and stated, ‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him, ‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’
The young man looked at me and blurted out, ‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.
2.On another occasion, a man came to me after a seminar and said, ‘Actually, I’m an atheist. Because I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe in absolutes, so I recognize that I can’t even be sure of reality.’ I responded, ‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? How can one even rationally believe that there is such a thing as truth, let alone decide what it is?
That's the conclusion of Ken's article. We were all raised in an environment that taught us not to think. This is how we fall into both religious and secular traps. We have each set up authority figures of one kind or another, then we have presuppositions to deal with, the 'axioms' that we use. Therefore, if it is my wish that I NOT be accountable to some supernatural being, then I will find evidence of this disbelief easily attainable. It works the other way as well. So what is the answer?
Jesus Christ himself is the answer. He is the answer in the spiritual realm as well as the evidenciary realm of the natural world. Once, I cried out to Him to show me 'truth', because so much of what I had been taught was false. During the next several months He revealed Himself in ways that I could not explain. I investigated the trinity doctrine to try and disprove it....and in that investigation the Lord revealed Himself. A obedient church had been praying for me and my family for two years before we all came out of the cult. I did receive an occasional witness from one their number when we debated the subject of scripture. He had recently been converted, being a former agnostic.
There are no accidents when we see the divine appointments being filled in our lives!
My belief is built on the solid rock of the testimony and deaths of Christians from the very beginning of the church age. My belief is locked in by my daily communication and walk with my Lord and my God. My eternal soul is sealed by the Holy Spirit and He guides me in all things....
Rex
Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs
by Rex 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Rex
-
rem
>> My belief is built on the solid rock of the testimony and deaths of Christians from the very beginning of the church age. My belief is locked in by my daily communication and walk with my Lord and my God. My eternal soul is sealed by the Holy Spirit and He guides me in all things....
In other words, you belief is based on the shaky foundation of the testimony of ancient ignorant dead people and your imaginary friend.
rem -
stillajwexelder
Galileo showed facts" - but was nearly burned at the stake beacuse it was alleged it contradicted the bible
Read Friedman "Who Wrote the Bible"
-
tetrapod.sapien
scientists do not start with a presupposition. they intend to find knowledge, not simply to confirm their existing position. if you want to debate this made up "issue", then i would be happy to ad infinitum, as i have already in the past.creationists set out to prop up their existing position. this is not science. this is religion.
the facts are not separate entities, as the writer insinuates. facts are strung together to form evidence. evidence is read as part of the whole. the debate is not about individual snippets of data. but how it all goes together into a whole. creationists have nothing on biologists in this regard.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
no, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.this is a strawman representation of how the debate really goes.
unless he is getting into the philosophical school of presupposition, a real joke if i may add, then he is talking total crap. here is a definition:
presupposition: the act of presupposing; a supposition made prior to having knowledge (as for the purpose of argument)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwnprior to having knowledge. get it? creationists only have information from the bible or other holy books. so indeed they are making all their assertions on presuppositions. biologists have strung the data together into a coherent whole. this is knowledge. so biologists are not arguing for evolution based on presuppositions. (rolls eyes - that was easy).
when creationists debate about evolution, they are not debating about the evidence of evolution. they are really debating about the existence of their god because the implications of ToE are that he is not in the picture. this is ridiculously childish apologetics, as is the article you posted.
There are no accidents when we see the divine appointments being filled in our lives!
to borrow one of the bible's phrases, the blind leading the blind.
TS
-
tetrapod.sapien
rex,
oh, and BTW, what in-the ... is the "Atheist Bible"?
TS
-
tdogg
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
Ha this statement is less of a presupposition and more of a presumption. In fact, I have worn both glasses. I raised with all the Christian 'presuppositions' as you say. But facts are facts. They are not open to interpretation, if they were then by defintion they are not facts! You are confusing facts with conclusions.
Your Christian "glasses" seem to operate more as "blinders" because you approach every bit of evidence with the intention of applying it to your belief system. You try to "interpret" facts, ie. speculate on supplemental reasons how the 'fact' can fit into your paradigm. I shed my blinders and let the evidence speak for itself. If the evidence does not fit into my current belief system, then that system must be altered, not the evidence. I am free to change my belief based on new information, you are a enslaved to a firmly entrenched and unyielding belief system that will not allow you to see the world for what it is.
-
ezekiel3
‘Then how do you know you’re really here making this statement?’ ‘Good point,’ he replied. ‘What point?’ I asked. The man looked at me, smiled, and said, ‘Maybe I should go home.’ I stated, ‘Maybe it won’t be there.’ ‘Good point,’ the man said. ‘What point?’ I replied.
How smug is this Ham?
They [Christains] have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Funny that the Bible itself is just a BIG stack of presuppositions. I don't know what the "Atheist Bible" is but "The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories" is a good place to start.
Posted in segments beginning here: The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 1 - In the Beginning
The writer didn't even have to touch evolution or science to make the point that the Bible (especially the OT) is just Jewish myth.
So what happens when the Christian's presupposition, the Bible, evaporates? Now that's a 'point' to ponder.
-
Forscher
Tetrapod said:
"scientists do not start with a presupposition. they intend to find knowledge, not simply to confirm their existing position."
Not true Tetrapod. In my research classes at the university level that kind of thinking was discouraged. We were taught to theorize based on what others (those who went before) observed and then to set out to prove those theories. Confirming the existing point was the point, not the pursuit of knowledge independent of that.
Tetrapod said:
"creationists set out to prop up their existing position. this is not science. this is religion."
My experience is that evolutionists do much the same thing. They start out with the position that there is no creator other than pure chance and work to prop up that position. That is not science either.
Forscher -
Rex
Galileo's persecution has absolutely no comparison to my post. You are talking about apples and oranges. His theory was proven and the Catholic Church leadership was wrong, not scripture.....
Rex -
Rex
Hi Tetly,
Er uh...are you serious, "scientists start with no presuppositions"????? EVERYONE has presuppositions, axioms, that they develop as time goes on and learning continues. The whole idea is to get to the point where you can consider the data for what it's worth rather than for what you think it's worth.
The Atheist Bible? Naturalism is it's 'Old Testament', Evolution is it's New Testament and the alleged 'Age of Reason' is it's comparative interpretation of all facts, with the PRESUPPOSITION that 'no supernatural events occur because we cannot measure these in any way.'
I do not see it, therefore it does not exist!!! LOL
Rex