Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 31 of 186 (781909)
04-09-2016 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
04-09-2016 10:11 AM


Re: Context
quote:
As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets. In the process I am forced to sift through a lot of rock. The same holds true in any book. In order to support my argument, I look for the best words, phrases, passages or statements that accomplish this.
Looking for quotes that honestly support your case is rather different from quote-mining - looking for quotes to misrepresent. If you are only concerned with winning an argument and don't care about the truth of the matter, or the ethics of honest discussion, it,s not really faith that is the issue, is it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 10:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 10:34 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 39 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 3:01 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 32 of 186 (781910)
04-09-2016 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
04-09-2016 10:32 AM


Re: Context
Good point.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM PaulK has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 186 (781913)
04-09-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Phat
04-09-2016 10:11 AM


Re: Context
Phat writes:
I would agree that for many of us, our pride in ourselves...in our supposed wisdom, in our cherished identity can and do cause us to get angry.As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets.
But what is often not done is acknowledge those nuggets that refute your position and that is why there can never be "Creation Science" or "Creation scientists". A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 10:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 2:14 PM jar has replied
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 08-01-2016 4:29 AM jar has replied

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


(3)
Message 34 of 186 (781914)
04-09-2016 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
04-09-2016 12:03 AM


Creationism, Falsifiability, And Faith
At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.
Well, this raises an interesting point which I shall try to make relevant.
We often distinguish between science-as-a-collection-of-facts and science-as-a-method-of-inquiry. In the same way we can distinguish between creationism-as-a-collection-of-falsehoods and creationism-as-a-method-of-being-wrong.
It is true that creationism-as-a-collection-of-falsehoods contains many propositions that can readily be falsified by application of the scientific method. By application of the scientific method. But creationism is not merely a collection of falsehoods, but a method of being wrong, and this is what makes it unfalsifiable.
For the creationist is always allowed to add an auxiliary hypothesis to reconcile his core beliefs with the evidence. For example:
* Dating methods reveal the rocks to be too old for creationists' tastes. Let's add a hypothesis: somehow the miraculous events of the flood caused "accelerated radioactive decay".
* Many stars are measurably too far away for their light to have reached us by now if the universe was young. Let's add a hypothesis: God miracled the light into existence in transit. Or, alternatively, light sprinted most of the way and has slowed down to c just as we started measuring it. For no apparent reason.
* It would be impracticable to fit all those animals on the Ark. Let's add a hypothesis: the measurements given in the Bible are of the external dimensions of the Ark, and God miraculously made it bigger on the inside than the outside. (I didn't make that one up.)
And so on. Now in fact any hypothesis can be defended in this way. If someone wanted to defend the hypothesis that there is a giraffe in my back yard, in the face of the evidence that I can't see a giraffe in my back yard, they can always add a hypothesis: "But what if this giraffe is invisible! What if God is making the giraffe invisible by magic!" But no-one is motivated to defend the giraffe hypothesis in this way, whereas people are motivated to defend the core notions of YEC in this way. This is why Overton was right to say that creationism is dogmatic and non-tentative: the core notions are fixed, and the work of creationism is to make them unassailable by the addition of auxiliary hypotheses. And this, of course, makes creationism unfalsifiable. For false statements combined with this method of adding auxiliary hypotheses ad hoc, is indeed unfalsifiable.
And this is the problem with faith generally. As my example of the giraffe shows, it is possible to believe literally anything (except perhaps a flat contradiction in terms) so long as you are sufficiently attached to the idea that you will add any number of auxiliary hypotheses rather than abandon it.
This applies to matters of fact, as creationists have so ably demonstrated (there's six words you've never seen together before!) It applies to the explaining-away of awkward texts: you can make them mean practically whatever you mean by proposing novel interpretations of the words, ad hoc, to change the meaning of the passage. (See here for an example of John Calvin confronting and disarming the very unCalvinist Biblical text "God will have all men to be saved".) It applies to moral questions. If some pesky atheist starts complaining about (say) the Holocaust as an example of the Problem of Evil, then the theist can say, ad hoc: "Perhaps that was really a good thing, for ... uh, reasons? Anyway, who are we to say what's good or bad?" Of course, no-one would say that in my defense if I'd been an accessory to the murder of six million people, because no-one is motivated to do so any more than they are motivated to defend the giraffe in my back yard. But when they need to defend a matter of faith, they always can.
This does set up a conflict between the entire method of science and scholarship on the one hand, and faith on the other. Someone bound by ordinary reasonable methods of inquiry would reject outright many religious propositions rather than build up an edifice of ad hoc hypotheses to defend them. Faith, on the other hand, requires certain propositions to be sacrosanct, and requires that the believer should engage in whatever intellectual maneuvers are needed to defend them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:03 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 35 of 186 (781915)
04-09-2016 2:07 PM


Science is universal. Chemists in China practice it in exactly the same way as those in Sweden. If you add an acid to sodium bi-carbonate you get CO2 no matter what you'd prefer to believe. You can tell the guy in China that it's O2, but it ain't; one will put out a lighted flame and the other will singe your eyebrows. That's called evidence, repeatable and universally true (given the same circumstances.)
I was amused to hear that the Pope has finally decreed that in matters of sex, marriage and the family believers should follow their conscience. Imagine giving a physicist that instruction - he could claim that pluto was created out of the centre of a donut in 1027 and is kept in orbit by strings of super-sticky candy floss. If that's what he believes, then it ok. That's called faith, believe any old crap and don't worry about the contrdictions.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 2:22 PM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 186 (781916)
04-09-2016 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
04-09-2016 12:48 PM


Re: Context
jar writes:
A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny.
I can see where purposely attempting to falsify a theory is a key component of the scientific method, right? But should the same discipline be used in regards to faith? Is that why you used to always tell me to "throw God away" and I never understood why?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 2:28 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 186 (781917)
04-09-2016 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tangle
04-09-2016 2:07 PM


tangle writes:
I was amused to hear that the Pope has finally decreed that in matters of sex, marriage and the family believers should follow their conscience. Imagine giving a physicist that instruction - he could claim that pluto was created out of the centre of a donut in 1027 and is kept in orbit by strings of super-sticky candy floss. If that's what he believes, then it ok. That's called faith, believe any old crap and don't worry about the contradictions.
Interesting. I have a question, though. What should be the rule of thumb regarding sex,marriage and the family? Does the Pope mean to imply that we should be responsible for our own behaviors?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 2:07 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 3:01 PM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 38 of 186 (781918)
04-09-2016 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Phat
04-09-2016 2:14 PM


Re: Context
Phat writes:
I can see where purposely attempting to falsify a theory is a key component of the scientific method, right? But should the same discipline be used in regards to faith? Is that why you used to always tell me to "throw God away" and I never understood why?
Extraordinary claims should require extraordinary analysis.
There was a poster here for awhile to took over Ron Wyatt's marketing after Ron died and I asked about him ignoring evidence in some of the "evidence" he presented (one example was his claim that a photo showed a 'guard shack' when there were no widows facing the gate and rocks with pictographs he claimed showed calves when in fact they showed all kinds of animals and human figures in full phallic pose.
When I pointed out that a guard shack with no windows facing the gate was just stupid and that the rock did not show calves his response was "Why would I present evidence that did not support me?"
The difference between science and theology is that there seems to be a culture of honesty and morality when dealing with science that is totally missing in much of the Faith and Theology camp.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 2:14 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 39 of 186 (781921)
04-09-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
04-09-2016 10:32 AM


Re: Context
PaulK writes:
Looking for quotes that honestly support your case is rather different from quote-mining - looking for quotes to misrepresent. If you are only concerned with winning an argument and don't care about the truth of the matter, or the ethics of honest discussion, it,s not really faith that is the issue, is it ?
I just enjoy sharing discussion, examining context,having a laugh or two, and getting to know other peoples thought processes.
ringo,from another topic writes:
Some can argue both sides of a debate; some have to believe what they debate; some can't argue either side effectively.
I suppose that in order to be a better debater, one must study the contrary positions.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 40 of 186 (781922)
04-09-2016 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
04-09-2016 2:22 PM


phat writes:
Interesting. I have a question, though. What should be the rule of thumb regarding sex,marriage and the family? Does the Pope mean to imply that we should be responsible for our own behaviors?
He's talking about divorce, use of contraception and homosexuality.
Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs,
Pope Francis urges compassion for all in landmark statement on family values | Pope Francis | The Guardian
An enormous great fudge wouldn't you say? (Welcome though it is.)
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 04-09-2016 2:22 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-10-2016 6:47 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 186 (781925)
04-10-2016 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Tangle
04-09-2016 3:01 PM


Pope On A Rope
Tangle,referring to The Pope writes:
He's talking about divorce, use of contraception and homosexuality.
And as a Christian who struggles with same sex attraction, I can accept and respect what Pope Francis eloquently expresses. Personally, I believe that the guy I need to be attracted to the most is Jesus Himself. I believe strongly that people cannot control nor switch off their basic inborn human characteristics but that we can and must control our behaviors.
Tangle writes:
An enormous great fudge wouldn't you say? (Welcome though it is.)
I never understood British humor. Can you elaborate, O Tangled One?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Tangle, posted 04-09-2016 3:01 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2016 6:00 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1374 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 42 of 186 (786416)
06-21-2016 4:15 PM


Science is just a subset of truths.
Evidence is for a small group humans to examine a truth, then for the rest to believe with faith.
That's why 99% humans don't have the evidence that black holes exist before they reckon this as a known truth.

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Coyote, posted 06-21-2016 5:48 PM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2016 8:06 PM Hawkins has not replied

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


Message 43 of 186 (786424)
06-21-2016 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hawkins
06-21-2016 4:15 PM


Evidence is for a small group humans to examine a truth, then for the rest to believe with faith.
I would suggest that "trust" is a better word than "faith."
The trust accorded to science has been earned over centuries of following the evidence, trying to understand it, and correcting errors when they are found.
On the other hand, faith more often presupposes belief without evidence.
That is the opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hawkins, posted 06-21-2016 4:15 PM Hawkins has not replied

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


Message 44 of 186 (786425)
06-21-2016 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Phat
04-10-2016 6:47 AM


Re: Pope On A Rope
Phat writes:
And as a Christian who struggles with same sex attraction
You'll need to clarify that.
quote:
Personally, I believe that the guy I need to be attracted to the most is Jesus Himself.
You understand that the attraction we mean when referring to gender is sexual right?
quote:
I believe strongly that people cannot control nor switch off their basic inborn human characteristics but that we can and must control our behaviors.
Well people can try to control their sexual insincts, but they rarely seem capable of it. But the real question is 'why the fuck should they?'
quote:
I never understood British humor. Can you elaborate, O Tangled One?
Don't try. In this case there's no humour. The pope knows when he's lost - he's allowing people to follow their own conscience. Big of him (sarcasm). The Vatican did a similar thing in Western democracies with contraception - if you follow your conscience you won't go to hell. That was a pragmatic response to the simple fact that grown ups had already 'followed their conscience' and weren't going to listen to a virgin in a frock telling them they must have a kid every 12 months until the mother died or they couldn't feed any more.
But in less developed nations they still stick by the 'no condom' rule. Catholic doctrine bends and flexes - if it didn't it would break. They can't have that.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 04-10-2016 6:47 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 186 (786438)
06-21-2016 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hawkins
06-21-2016 4:15 PM


Science is just a subset of truths.
Evidence is for a small group humans to examine a truth, then for the rest to believe with faith.
That's why 99% humans don't have the evidence that black holes exist before they reckon this as a known truth.
I disagree. Humans have faith in science because it works. I mean, it put a freakin' man on the moon. And here we are (me and you) sitting here instantly communicating from opposite sides of the planet, using electricity. Because science.
And "the rest" don't always miss out on examining the truth. Explaining the acid-base reaction to children by making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes instills a great sense of it works at an early age. It really doesn't take much "faith" to believe that one.
Now, when you're talking about highly theoretical stuff; I guess I can see how you consider this complete acceptance as being more blind, and therefore more "faithy", but I don't think that blindness is a good measure of faithyness, and I don't think that most humans' reckonings are as completely accepting as your argument suggests. That is, they don't have the vicissitude of blind faith.
I'm figuring that the faith would have to be blind because you're making it a polar opposite of "examining the truth".
Science is just a subset of truths.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. That is, if you're making the point that people accept it under faith, then why are you starting with it being true?
I guess you mean that there are other truths that science is missing out on. And science would agree. And that would be that.
Oh, are you talking about some kind of "scientific truth"?
Like how it is "accepted" more than it is "believed"? Wouldn't that be conflating?
What are you getting at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hawkins, posted 06-21-2016 4:15 PM Hawkins has 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