| |
|
Further upthread was discussion about science and religion. From another thread, I stumbled upon this website. Here's a quote from their "scientist".
"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... what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
[Christians] 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... 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.
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."
So when Jack Fear says "that people of faith can understand the thinking of atheists far better than the other way around" - it seems that people of faith agree with this assertion.
On the other hand, Peter Shaftoe says that Jack Fear is "ignoring the very existence of significant numbers of Christian fundamentalists who are hostile to science".
I just thought I'd present this website as food for thought. Because really, evolution/creationism/intelligent design are not dangerous ideas until zealots (on both sides) get their hands on it. When somebody becomes rabid over an idea, any idea, that's when it's dangerous. |
|
|
