Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Have some scientists been too fanatical?
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 76 of 101 (680102)
11-17-2012 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by NoNukes
11-17-2012 4:07 PM


Say what? Panspermia does not involve life predating the big bang, so it does not require that life survive the big bang.
I was replying to nwr who put the two in the same sentence.
Please explain what you mean by phenomenon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by NoNukes, posted 11-17-2012 4:07 PM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by hooah212002, posted 11-18-2012 10:59 AM sinamatic has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 77 of 101 (680103)
11-17-2012 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 3:46 PM


panspermia is a pretty interesting idea and one that I used to give thought to. I just can't imagine how any life would survive the big bang though. I think it just kind of kicks the can down the road on the question of life's origination. I see it as an idea that isn't widely accepted but may one day be the mainstream if evidence is found.
Panspermia is still considered a possibility, though it probably has few proponents. The main point, though, is that scientists have not ruled out other possibilities for the origin of life.
I think that a lot of people try to use science to explain everything.
That is a frequent accusation. I'm not sure it is true. When I discuss this with people who seem to be making such claims, it usually turns out that they are actually claiming that our knowledge is arrived at by examination of empirical evidence. And that's a weaker claim than that science explains everything.
Some people do talk of a "Theory of Everything" but most people think it unlikely that we shall ever have such a theory. Or, as I like to say it, "My theory of everything predicts that there will never be a theory of everything."
I think this is a flaw because how can science explain what or why someone thinks a thought or makes a choice?
How about:
  • John walked into the cafe and ordered soup, because the aroma was enticing and he was hungry.
It depends on what is meant by "explain". "Explain" is a lot weaker than "predict". The idea that something smaller than the entire universe could predict the future of the entire universe (including the future of itself as part of the universe) seems quite implausible.
Some scientists do claim that our knowledge of science rules out free will. However, it always seems to me that their so saying is an expression of their own free will. So I don't give much credence to those claims.
I might not even be me, there is no me, only matter and energy behaving with the laws of the universe.
That is one way of looking at things. But it seems to omit almost everything that we deem important.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 3:46 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 5:23 PM nwr has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 78 of 101 (680109)
11-17-2012 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 2:36 PM


Thats what I meant by somewhere somehow, might have been a poor choice of words but I was simply try to say that common ancestor implies that life started from non-life by some scientific means.
Well, no it doesn't. To say that there was a common ancestor implies that life started. As to how, there is no particular implication --- the first organism might as well have been sneezed out by the Great Green Arkleseizure. The theory of evolution as such is silent on this issue, just like the theory of gravity doesn't tell us the origin of matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 2:36 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 79 of 101 (680115)
11-17-2012 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by nwr
11-17-2012 4:18 PM


It depends on what is meant by "explain". "Explain" is a lot weaker than "predict". The idea that something smaller than the entire universe could predict the future of the entire universe (including the future of itself as part of the universe) seems quite implausible.
What I mean is that most aethiests, believe that there is a scientific explaination for why we got here. I know that scientists do their best to formulate theories based on evidence and not over extend what the evidence shows. Big questions still remain though and people are taught that there is a scientific explaination for everything out there, it just needs to be discovered and some things we will never be discover because our base of knowledge rests only on what we can observe here from earth , I get that.
My goal is to try and show that belief in a god is not as far fetched as a lot of people claim. I've been accused of believing in fairy tales, believing with blind faith, magic, and of being dellusional. I accept what scientists claim and see the evidence. I take all that with a grain of salt though. I think some scientists over step their boundries sometimes though in the name of science. Science as an institution does an excellent job of wording their theories to match what the evidence shows. I understand that at times this has conflicted with what some religious institutions have taught and dont blame them for saying what they find to be true/untrue.
So my question is if some scientists have been too fanatical, combining their personal beliefs not based on evidence with evidence that can be reliably used in science applications. I also would like to point out that it is entirely possible for a person believing in god to practice science just as well as an aethiest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI5I10CAGIg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OBokk5TbU
a good debate imo
Linked those just to show that there is debate to be had defending an existence in god without denying what science shows.
Civil debates are a good thing, and I would like to see more of them.
The first link is only to show the desire to debate, not to accuse dawkins of being afraid to though I must admit after watching that
I wonder why dawkins would decline that debate yet agree to debate kirk cameron lol...what?
However I applaud dawkins for accepting all of his other debates. He obviously believes strongly in what he does and isnt afraid to have a dialog about it. I think that is the way people should try to change peoples minds, not by teaching them only one side, military force or social pressure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nwr, posted 11-17-2012 4:18 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tangle, posted 11-17-2012 7:00 PM sinamatic has not replied
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 11-17-2012 7:07 PM sinamatic has replied
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:22 PM sinamatic has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 80 of 101 (680125)
11-17-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 5:23 PM


sinamatic writes:
What I mean is that most atheists, believe that there is a scientific explaination for why we got here.
This may seem pedantic but it's important.
It's not true that all atheists think that there is a scientific explanation for why we got here. Some may think that science may one day explain how things happened - personally, I'm not one of them - but why? is not necessarily something science can explain, nor is it a necessity for not believing in a god.
I think it fair to say that most atheists would say that their primary objection to the god hypothesis is not God but religion. Because we know that religion is a man made invention, it's conventional to throw the God idea out with the religious bathwater.
But atheists, being primarily rationalists, would mostly also tell you that they can't rule out a deistic non-interventionist kind of god. So to that extent most atheists are in fact agnostics. But that's mainly playing with words - all it means is that we don't know yet, so we can't rule stuff out.
What I find interesting from a European perspective is that religion here has pretty much adopted science into our religions whilst in the US there is this black and white distinction it seems like you're still having the arguments that we had in the 19th century, but with now no hope of success as the science that you're rebelling against has been settled for over 100 years.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 5:23 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 81 of 101 (680128)
11-17-2012 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 5:23 PM


What I mean is that most aethiests, believe that there is a scientific explaination for why we got here.
I don't think that is true. What is true, though, is that most believe that in principle there could be such an explanation in terms of what is known about the natural world. I'll take it that is what you really meant.
My goal is to try and show that belief in a god is not as far fetched as a lot of people claim.
That's entirely up to you. I don't criticize people for such beliefs.
I've been accused of believing in fairy tales, believing with blind faith, magic, and of being dellusional.
I do not call people "delusional" simply because they believe something that is unevidenced. I don't have a problem with that. However, some YEC creationists believe things that are not merely unevidenced, but which are clearly contrary to evidence. And that is where "delusional" might be appropriately used.
I think some scientists over step their boundries sometimes though in the name of science.
I'll agree with that. Scientists are human, too, and to err is human.
So my question is if some scientists have been too fanatical, combining their personal beliefs not based on evidence with evidence that can be reliably used in science applications.
My disagreement there is with those words "too fanatical." I don't know what exactly you mean by that. My way of looking at it is to compare the amount of hype in what Christians say about atheists with the amount of hype in what atheists say about Christians. And by that statement, atheists look relatively mild in their criticisms. I grant that some of them say quite harsh things, but that still looks mild in comparison with what some Christians say about atheists.
I also would like to point out that it is entirely possible for a person believing in god to practice science just as well as an aethiest.
I completely agree with that. There are some fine scientists, even some fine evolutionary biologists, who believe in God.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 5:23 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 7:57 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 91 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 8:52 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 82 of 101 (680132)
11-17-2012 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 5:23 PM


Naturally we got here naturally.
What I mean is that most aethiests, believe that there is a scientific explaination for why we got here.
Why mention "atheists". As a Christian I conclude that there is a scientific explanation for why we got here.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 5:23 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 7:32 PM jar has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 83 of 101 (680133)
11-17-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by jar
11-17-2012 7:22 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
Why mention "atheists". As a Christian I conclude that there is a scientific explanation for why we got here.
ok correction then, solely a scientific explanation
If not then that kind of assumes something supernatural has happen or happens, or that nature itself is supernatural, not a far cry from believing in a diety or possiblility of one.
Edited by sinamatic, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:40 PM sinamatic has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 84 of 101 (680135)
11-17-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 7:32 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
A scientific explanation is an explanation. What other kind of explanation could there be? Magic?
Magic explains nothing.
Goddidit explains nothing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 7:32 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 7:48 PM jar has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 85 of 101 (680136)
11-17-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by jar
11-17-2012 7:40 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
A scientific explanation is an explanation. What other kind of explanation could there be? Magic?
Magic explains nothing.
Goddidit explains nothing.
Yeah it doesn't even try. It explain's why God did it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:54 PM sinamatic has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 101 (680137)
11-17-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 7:48 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
How does "goddidit" explain why God did it?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 7:48 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 8:18 PM jar has replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 87 of 101 (680138)
11-17-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by nwr
11-17-2012 7:07 PM


That's entirely up to you. I don't criticize people for such beliefs.
You sir moved up a notch in my book, for what its worth, and I thank you for that. If only everyone thinked like this, then every discussion would be civil and not degrade to petty insults.
I also try my best to understand aethiest and agnostic viewpoints
As long as they don't violate my moral code, I don't criticise them either as, after all, we are all on this journey together.
Sometimes though I'll admit I may try to persuade them to change their beliefs and I expect the same back at me from time to time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by nwr, posted 11-17-2012 7:07 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Capt Stormfield, posted 11-17-2012 10:57 PM sinamatic has not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 88 of 101 (680141)
11-17-2012 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by jar
11-17-2012 7:54 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
How does "goddidit" explain why God did it?
You seem to me as a person who believes there is a answer to everything satisfied through knowledge of science. I don't believe science is capable of answering all questions about our lives. God is the answer to these questions for me. Science has not convinced me of why life exists or why do we have such incredible imaginations or why do we ask why, to list a few examples
So naturedidit for you and goddidit for me it would seem

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 7:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 8:20 PM sinamatic has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 101 (680142)
11-17-2012 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by sinamatic
11-17-2012 8:18 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
If that makes you happy that's fine but it still explains nothing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 8:18 PM sinamatic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by sinamatic, posted 11-17-2012 8:45 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
sinamatic
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 67
From: Traverse City, MI usa
Joined: 03-10-2006


Message 90 of 101 (680144)
11-17-2012 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
11-17-2012 8:20 PM


Re: Naturally we got here naturally.
If that makes you happy that's fine but it still explains nothing.
To you it doesn't but to me it explains everything. I say that refering to science, my religion and my personal experiences. I still have questions but I feel like on the whole I have a much more general understanding of how I fit into the grande scheme of things.
I know that you don't feel the same but we can agree to disagree

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 11-17-2012 8:20 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024