Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 31 of 111 (529194)
10-08-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 2:45 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
I just meant I was conceding as far as the correlation between the POTUS and faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 2:45 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 32 of 111 (529195)
10-08-2009 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jazzns
10-08-2009 3:08 PM


Re: Umm..No!
Yeah I agree I may have shifted the goalpost a little bit, but it was because I hadn't been clear enough in my first post that you responded to.
In it I said that ''scientific inquiry was the fruit of the christian worldview'', meaning of course the same meaning the OP used when he asked about scientific inquiry, which is modern science. (there would be no point of asking if we should stop scientific inquiry as the ancient greeks did it)
My bad, I should have been clearer in that first post in order to avoid confusion. Dunno when I'll have time to start a thread, since I want not only to start it off but also stay in it to discuss. It'll probably go to next week after my exams.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 3:08 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 33 of 111 (529197)
10-08-2009 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 2:34 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
It is a concept that relies on the person believing something will happen even if there is no reason to believe that it will.
However, in my honest opinion, an opinion based on observation, is that the religious have reinvented the word faith, just like they invented the words "darwinist" and "evolutionist".
You are correct, to a rational minded person, to have faith in an ideal such as that of the POTUS should be the same as one has faith in a god type. We know what the POTUS has to do because he is bound by the constitution and laws.
However, for me at least, the meaning between the two is NOT at all the same. I can have faith that my friend won't steal my t.v. because he has shown me things in the past to prove he is trustworthy. Things I can directly attribute to him. With this god fella, you can't attribute shit directly to him. It's like the old adage "if your prayer comes true, praise him. If not, keep praying, or, it wasn't meant to be"
Faith in god: can never be proven
Faith my friend wont steal my tv: I can leave him alone with my tv. If its still there, he is trustworthy and worth my "faith". If not, I kick the shit out of him and I don't have anymore faith in him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 2:34 PM Izanagi has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 4:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 34 of 111 (529202)
10-08-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-08-2009 2:45 PM


The thing is: when it comes to evolution, every single scientific aspect of it is being combated due to its correlation to the TOE. They fail to realize how they probably accept that study when it addresses a different issue, something they deal with every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 2:45 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 3:53 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 111 (529205)
10-08-2009 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 3:48 PM


This is probably another topic. But to make it short, I disagree.
An intelligent christian that rejects the ToE won't reject the science behind it, he will reject the assumptions and the interpretations behind it.
Imagine a person who rejects uniformitarian approach to geology, does this mean he rejects geology ? Of course not, he juste rejects a particular assumptions made to interpret geological finds.
Same goes with the ToE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 3:48 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 3:59 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 37 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 4:05 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 38 by subbie, posted 10-08-2009 4:07 PM slevesque has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 36 of 111 (529208)
10-08-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
10-08-2009 3:53 PM


Imagine a person who rejects uniformitarian approach to geology, does this mean he rejects geology ? Of course not, he juste rejects a particular assumptions made to interpret geological finds.
I believe your example is backwards. In your example, it is the interpretation of evidence being denied, not the theory. People who reject evolution reject the theory, and maybe not ALWAYS all the studies involved, but most of the time.
Take C14 dating. How many christians do you know that think it is legitimate? Genetics? Hell, even fossils.
All of the things involved in making evolution a sound study/theory ARE disputed. If you don't dispute what is involved in making it valid, how can you deny it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 3:53 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 4:36 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 37 of 111 (529209)
10-08-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
10-08-2009 3:53 PM


An intelligent christian that rejects the ToE won't reject the science behind it, he will reject the assumptions and the interpretations behind it.
The problem I have seen is what they call "assumptions" are not. For example, it is common for young earthers to claim that radioactive decay rates are "assumptions" when in fact they are not. We can not only measure them directly we can measure them in the past by looking at supernovae and the effects that decay has had on its surroundings.
Rejecting interpretation is merely theory denial. They deny that it is even possible to construct a predictive and explanatory framework. I don't know what could possibly be more anti-scientific than this.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 3:53 PM slevesque has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 38 of 111 (529211)
10-08-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
10-08-2009 3:53 PM


quote:
An intelligent christian that rejects the ToE won't reject the science behind it, he will reject the assumptions and the interpretations behind it.
This is a common creationist misconception.
There are really only two assumptions behind the ToE; our senses provide us with accurate information about the real world behind us, and our intellect allows us to come to reliable conclusions based on the evidence we see. Coincidentally, these are the same two assumptions upon which rest all of science.
If you believe there are other assumptions that the ToE rests on, perhaps you could explain what those are. Might be off topic here, so it might require a new thread.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 3:53 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 4:57 PM subbie has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5217 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 39 of 111 (529214)
10-08-2009 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 3:41 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
I can have faith that my friend won't steal my t.v. because he has shown me things in the past to prove he is trustworthy.
True, but that is inductive logic. Inductive logic is never as valid as deductive logic.
For instance:
Big Mac 1 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac 2 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac 3 I ate did not poison me.
Big Mac N I ate did not poison me, where N is some random number.
Does that mean Big Mac N+1 will not poison me?
Inductive logic, in my opinion, plays a large role in faith. Past experiences do not serve well to justify future expectations. The fact that you opened your front door one hundred thousand times and did not fall down does not mean that the one hundred thousand and first time you open your door, you will not fall down. But your expectations are that you won't fall down simply because you didn't fall down the first one hundred thousand times.
Inductive logic serves to allow us to proceed normally in our daily lives without fear that something unusual or extraordinary will occur. It also serves to inform our responses in various situations. Because your friend has proven himself trustworthy in the past, you would trust him in the future. If he ever betrays that trust, you would be shocked since it didn't occur to you that he would betray your trust because he had always proven himself trustworthy in the past. But without inductive logic, you would always distrust, because why should past actions inform you of future expectations? Therefore you would expect anything.
Inductive logic is the essence of faith, I think.
But you are right, God can never be objectively proven. But for myself, I have experienced things that have given me faith in God, or at least some deity. For me, I have my own subjective reason for my faith in God. What I don't do is let my faith blind me to the realities of Universe.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 3:41 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 4:16 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 40 of 111 (529215)
10-08-2009 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 4:11 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
Good point and true. I'm not the best at describing philosophical issues such as this, but you at least get my point, mainly that there is nothing we can directly attribute to god, so that sort of faith is different than the faith in a friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 4:11 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4641 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 41 of 111 (529221)
10-08-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by hooah212002
10-08-2009 3:59 PM


Ok let's take the example of C14 dating. I do not of any creationist (apart from maybe kent hovind lol) who think the dating process is inherently flawed, and reject it based on that fact.
They reject the C14 results, because they reject the assumptions behind it. One of those assumptions of course is that the rate of decay has been constant.
Now don't get me wrong, measuring the current decay rate is not an assumption, it is an observation. As is measuring the current level of C14 in a fossil. Creationists will never dispute these. But they will dispute that you cannot assume that the rate has been constant in the past, which isn't an observation, but an assumption.
I don't want to sound negatively about assumptions. They are an important part of scientific inquiry. Hell, creationist make assumption all the time when they do research, and of course since all this goes both ways, evolutionists reject their data because they reject the assumptions behind them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by hooah212002, posted 10-08-2009 3:59 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 10-08-2009 4:45 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2009 4:47 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 45 by Perdition, posted 10-08-2009 4:56 PM slevesque has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 111 (529222)
10-08-2009 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-08-2009 4:36 PM


Did you seriously not read my reply to you where I busted this assumption nonsense USING an example of radioactive decay rates?
FYI, we CAN in fact measure decay rates in the past. We can also test the hypothesis that they were faster in the past which we do every day. If you are able to breath air, think, live, and type to me on this computer, then decay rates were not higher in the past.
Their assumptions are NOT assumptions. They would like them to be, but they are not.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 4:36 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 43 of 111 (529224)
10-08-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-08-2009 4:36 PM


Assumptions
...evolutionists reject their data because they reject the assumptions behind them.
Normally they reject the assumptions because they reject the conclusions and attacking the assumptions is the one place they think they can get some traction.
They equate the word "assumption" with "wrong" without ever showing any details of why that assumption is wrong other than it produces the wrong results--to creationists.
Creation "science" as usual--entirely results driven.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:00 PM Coyote has replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 44 of 111 (529225)
10-08-2009 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
10-08-2009 2:45 PM


slavesque said:
Anyhow, I don't really get how the OP got the idea that, because a certain religious group does not accept a given scientific theory, then that they probably want (or should want) scientific inquiry to end.
I probably didn't put my question/concern clearly enough. I don't believe that's what they want, but I'm curious how they would answer the question. I guess my curiosity comes from the fact that real science is continually being knocked by religious elements, so much so that it is almost in fashion in some parts of the world to talk about scientists as "quacks".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 2:45 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 45 of 111 (529226)
10-08-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
10-08-2009 4:36 PM


They reject the C14 results, because they reject the assumptions behind it. One of those assumptions of course is that the rate of decay has been constant.
That was the point about supernovae. The flash we see from a super nova is millions or billions of years old, depending on how far away it is. By looking at the data, people much smarter than I can see what the decay rates must have been at the time and place of the supernova. Every time we've measured those, we come to the same conclusions, that place and time have no effect on decay rates, thus there is absolutely no reason to think the decay rates have changed, and more than enough evidence to show they haven't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:07 PM Perdition has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024