Those who cannot bear the burden of scripture are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have scripture in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened.LOL
>Except by sealing the brain off into separate airtight compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the earth is around 10,000 years old?
What proof do you have that the earth is older than 10000 years? Are you absolutely certain that the evidence can be interpreted only in one way?
>At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes_ an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive,
Hmmm, then why do we have evidence 'thrown out' that doesn't fit the popular theories?
>and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are separated from deep nonsense.
Really, if this is so then you must have some proof, right?
>Science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis.
Amen!
>If you are open to the point of gullibility and have no skeptical sense, then you cannot distinguish promising ideas from the worthless ones.
That goes without saying, but who sits in judgment to decide this?
>Uncritically accepting every notion,idea, or hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing.
No duh
>When ideas contradict one another, only through skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them.
And your point is?
"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."_Ethan Allen
That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee in some places.
Rex
God and Science
by Shining One 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Shining One
-
seattleniceguy
Seymour,
At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes_ an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive, and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are separated from deep nonsense.
Excellent description!
"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."_Ethan Allen
Brilliant.
Shining,
You say that Naturalism and Religion are both religious viewpoints. But I think you are missing a qualitative difference between the two, which is emphasized by Semour's first quote above. A naturalistic view demands explanations that are logically coherent and are demonstrable in the natural world. Religion just makes stuff up without regard for evidence, or even logical coherence at times.
SNG
-
Darth Yhwh
“What proof do you have that the earth is older than 10000 years? Are you absolutely certain that the evidence can be interpreted only in one way?”
Have you ever heard of radiometric dating? Yes the evidence can be interperated in several different manners however, the changes to rates of radiometric decay required to make the age of the Earth very young are considered irrevelant (1% margin of error) even by the scientests that porport such theorys.
-
OldSoul
SNG,Religion just makes stuff up without regard for evidence, or even logical coherence at times.
I agree that "religion" does that insofar as religions that propound a particular dogma do that. Every single one I have investigated so far, anyway.
However, if we understand religion to be a way of worship then I take exception to this characterization. I have attempted to have this discussion several times on many threads, some my own and sometimes other threads. Since it certainly isn't a discussion at cross purpose to the title of the thread I will try it out again here.
I think religions and the religious make a grave error in judgment when they attempt to prove the existence of a Creator from within the framework of the Scientific Method. And I am not talking about for reasons such as "the existence of God defies proof" or silly arguments like that.
I think their error in judgement lies in a basic inadequacy built into the Scientific Method when it comes to its capacity for discovery. This inadequacy is well known, but I have never read or heard that it has been applied in this context before.
The Scientific Method is incredibly efficient in discovery of the objectifiable, the reducible. There is a prevailing assumption that given enough time and enough knowledge that everything will be reducible, and therefore objectifiable. However, this leaves a gaping void in its ability to explain reality: the subjective. While I do not pretend that everything that is known must be known through personal experience or it cannot be known, I also do not pretend that all experience must be definable and objectifiable to be realilty. This is the realm of the subjective, what mystics for centuries have called the spiritual realm.
Since those who believe in a God/Goddess, or many Gods/Goddesses, routinely place their God(s)/Goddess(es) in that realm with nearly universal assertion that they have the capacity to enter our physical (objective) reality, in my estimation it would be an exercise in utter futility to attempt to prove the existence of a Creator by use of a method so horribly ill-suited to the task of examining the subjective reality.
Perhaps we will find a means to start examining that subjective reality. Until then, I am content to say, "I believe in God because I believe there is more reality in heaven and earth than are dreamt in your philosophy." BTW, the part of Horatio was unwittingly played by the Scientific Method in that bit of twisted plagiarism.
Open fire at will, gentlemen.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
Shining One
"A naturalistic view demands explanations that are logically coherent and are demonstrable in the natural world."
'Logical coherence' only goes so far until it breaks down into conjecture. The conjecture that any person chooses to use, not just a scientist, is related entirely to that person's presuppositions. This is one of the reasons that some atheists and agnostics have become deists or even Christians.
Science consistently derives speculation from theories that are inobservable and undemonstrated. Again, this goes back to presuppositions that may or may not be accurate. The burden of proof for your statements is on you, btw.
"Religion just makes stuff up without regard for evidence"
That's a broad and all encompassing ststement. In some cases this is true but can you prove this specifically?
Rex -
Shining One
“What proof do you have that the earth is older than 10000 years? Are you absolutely certain that the evidence can be interpreted only in one way?”
>Have you ever heard of radiometric dating?
Yes.
>Yes the evidence can be interperated in several different manners however, the changes to rates of radiometric decay required to make the age of the Earth very young are considered irrevelant (1% margin of error) even by the scientests that porport such theorys.
What proof do you have that the rates have always been constant? How much of the various dating methods are dependent on a presupposed figure of millions or billions of years?
Rex -
Shining One
"I believe in God because I believe there is more reality in heaven and earth than are dreamt in your philosophy." BTW, the part of Horatio was unwittingly played by the Scientific Method in that bit of twisted plagiarism.
I do understand what you are saying. However, this does not mean that Christians need accept the artificial barrier that has been erected by some scientists, i.e., 'science and religion are separate domains'. Typically the unbelievers use this to their advantage by critisism of faith then cry foul when Christians point out the most minor of logical and demonstrable errors in so called scientific theories. You can see this in the attitude of the 'scientific establishment' toward the I.D. scientists, especially biased against the 'Young Earth' research. Check that out in my 'Dembski's Defense' thread.
Rex -
seattleniceguy
OldSoul,I will get back to you when I have time. I'm a bit pressed right now.
Shining,
Science consistently derives speculation from theories that are inobservable and undemonstrated. Again, this goes back to presuppositions that may or may not be accurate.
It is correct to say that science works within certain paradigms. The reason for this is that without a working paradigm, it is not possible to make predictions. But to say that science works on the basis "inobservable and undemonstrated" theories is simply wrong. Science does not and cannot work except by observation and demonstration - in fact, repeated demonstration under a wide variety of circumstances. This is the very basis of science.
SNG: "Religion just makes stuff up without regard for evidence"
Shining: That's a broad and all encompassing ststement. In some cases this is true but can you prove this specifically?What I meant was simply that in science, you can't just make up random stuff. It has to fit into the evidence of the observable universe. I can't just write a scientific article and claim that water boils at 40 degrees Celsius when it has cat fur in it. It has to be repeatable, demonstrable, and logically consistent with everything else we know.
On the other hand, religion can just make stuff up. For example, I can just say with no evidence whatsoever, "God came to me in a dream. His name is Bob and he wants us to be good people. Also, hamburgers are bad." This is the way religion works. Sure, some modern religions have a semblance of logic or even scientific thinking to them, but it's a facade. At the end of the day, they get to make stuff up that is not objectively testable by anyone else. This is the primary difference between science and religion. Scientific claims are falsifiable, religious ones are not.
SNG
(Corrected spelling error.)
-
OldSoul
SNG,
Thanks. I'll be back on in a few days.
Respectfully,
OldSoul -
Caedes
shiner said
"What proof do you have that the rates have always been constant? How much of the various dating methods are dependent on a presupposed figure of millions or billions of years?"
Well because the rates can be measured. Your "presupposed figure" is calculated by measuring the rate of decay.
There is no evidence to suggest that decay rates change in the isotopes used for geological dating. Before you bring it up you can change the rates of decay in some isotopes (but not by much, around 1%) but these isotopes aren't used in geological dating.
You have to also remember that a strictly scientific methodology is applied as well to increase the accuracy of the results, more than one isotope is used in the tests to ensure the answers are consistant.