Science and Theology, the sequel

02/24/2010 07:59:04 PM · #1551

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing.

Science has "faith" that everything has a natural explanation and religion has "faith" that everything is ultimately explained by the supernatural, however they are NOT on the same footing at all. That's an Equivocation Fallacy. Science has faith (in the sense of trust from experience and past observation) that questions have natural explanations because every single question we've ever answered HAS had a natural explanation, and there's nothing to suggest this track record will ever be broken. Religious believers have faith (in the sense of irrational belief) that the supernatural explains it all despite a 0% track record. If confronted with a mystery disease, would the assumption that it's a new, but unknown, microorganism be on the same footing with the assumption that the illness was a supernatural curse? Of course not, and whether the answer is knowable does not change this.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/24/2010 08:03:00 PM · #1552

Originally posted by David Ey:

where do you find that 6-8000 reference?

The last place I saw it was in the link that

rossbilly offered up with his 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer. I'm no biblical scholar and don't actually profess to know but I've always been under the impression that creationists and evolutionists disagree on the earth's origin by a few hundred million years. Am I wrong?

scarbrd

Leica M10

02/24/2010 08:08:43 PM · #1553

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by David Ey:
where do you find that 6-8000 reference?

The last place I saw it was in the link that rossbilly offered up with his 50 Questions Christians Can't Answer. I'm no biblical scholar and don't actually profess to know but I've always been under the impression that creationists and evolutionists disagree on the earth's origin by a few hundred million years. Am I wrong?

By a few billion years. Young Earth Christians follow the genealogy from Adam and calculate the age of the earth. These Wiki pages offer a decent explanation.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogies_of_Genesis

02/24/2010 08:10:20 PM · #1554

Originally posted by David Ey:

where do you find that 6-8000 reference?

Biblical chronology

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

02/24/2010 08:17:54 PM · #1555

Soooooo.......

My question remains to Jason. Are you a believer in Creation as put forth by the Bible, OR.....

Like me, do you believe that science has shown unequivocally that life has been here for a lot longer than 10,000 years?

That will really put you either on the same footing as you're trying to claim, or not.

scarbrd

Leica M10

02/24/2010 08:23:31 PM · #1556

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I don't think Jason ever said he was a creationist.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/24/2010 08:25:21 PM · #1557

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't think Jason ever said he was a creationist.

I don't remember what his stance was......that's why I asked.....8>)

Louis

Nikon D800

02/24/2010 08:47:10 PM · #1558

He's said elsewhere that he is not a creationist and accepts evolution.

02/24/2010 08:50:40 PM · #1559

Originally posted by Louis:

He's said elsewhere that he is not a creationist and accepts evolution.

Okay.....I truly don't know this stuff....can you do that and be a Christian? What does that do to the Garden of Eden story, the flood, and all that other stuff? How can we evolve, and still have the original sin thing?

Or does he accept evolution except for humans?

Message edited by author 2010-02-24 20:51:13.

02/24/2010 09:32:49 PM · #1560

Thank God a few people are paying attention to things I say. ;) No, I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

02/24/2010 09:40:25 PM · #1561

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He's taking a logical, or reasoned, stance regarding the simple existence of a god, a creator, of whatever flavor, and trying to show how when we step out into the extreme speculation required to attempt to understand the origins of the universe, we're all on more-or-less equal footing.

Science has "faith" that everything has a natural explanation and religion has "faith" that everything is ultimately explained by the supernatural, however they are NOT on the same footing at all. That's an Equivocation Fallacy. Science has faith (in the sense of trust from experience and past observation) that questions have natural explanations because every single question we've ever answered HAS had a natural explanation, and there's nothing to suggest this track record will ever be broken. Religious believers have faith (in the sense of irrational belief) that the supernatural explains it all despite a 0% track record. If confronted with a mystery disease, would the assumption that it's a new, but unknown, microorganism be on the same footing with the assumption that the illness was a supernatural curse? Of course not, and whether the answer is knowable does not change this.

Are you taking a philosophy class or something because you seem to suddenly have as many names for fallacies as Crayola has crayons?

Imagine a giant jar filled with white gumballs and pink ones. Every time you pick a pink gumball you put it aside in a pile. Every time you pick a white one, you put it back in the jar. If someone came along and saw the pile of pink gumballs, would it be reasonable to assume all the gumballs in the jar were pink? Probably. Would it be correct? Not all all.

Science works the same way. A problem comes along and scientists try to figure out what's going on. If they succeed, the problem is answered and then put aside. If it is not answered, it is dropped for another time when someone else tries again. If problems exist that truly cannot be answered by science, wouldn't we naturally assume they would be the last problems around? Can't our track record of scientific endeavor be explained every bit as accurately by this model as the one that assumes all the gumballs are pink? To make it even worse, there only needs to be one white gumball in the whole jar to ruin the whole principle of Materialism. One.

02/24/2010 09:43:12 PM · #1562

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Thank God a few people are paying attention to things I say. ;) No, I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

02/24/2010 09:46:54 PM · #1563

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Imagine a giant jar filled with white gumballs and pink ones. Every time you pick a pink gumball you put it aside in a pile. Every time you pick a white one, you put it back in the jar. If someone came along and saw the pile of pink gumballs, would it be reasonable to assume all the gumballs in the jar were pink? Probably. Would it be correct? Not all all.

Why would you assume that if you can see the jar? If you can't see the jar, only an idiot would assume so.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Science works the same way. A problem comes along and scientists try to figure out what's going on. If they succeed, the problem is answered and then put aside. If it is not answered, it is dropped for another time when someone else tries again. If problems exist that truly cannot be answered by science, wouldn't we naturally assume they would be the last problems around? Can't our track record of scientific endeavor be explained every bit as accurately by this model as the one that assumes all the gumballs are pink? To make it even worse, there only needs to be one white gumball in the whole jar to ruin the whole principle of Materialism. One.

See above. Your theory falls flat 'cause your premise is junque.

02/24/2010 09:55:26 PM · #1564

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

You might want to read the wiki for Analogy. There isn't really a giant jar of science. Scientific problems aren't really gumballs.

02/24/2010 10:20:41 PM · #1565

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You might want to read the wiki for Analogy. There isn't really a giant jar of science. Scientific problems aren't really gumballs.

I know what makes sense, but apparently, you haven't a clue.

You've been dancing around with these bullshit ways of avoiding answering how it is for one freakin' second that you can compare your 2000 year old bullsh*t story way of looking at things with thousands of years of proven, disproven, and ongoing facts. You just won't admit that you can't, and that there is no correlation between your fantasy and reliable proven facts.

You are more than welcome to your beliefs, but it can't be proven out to be real, any more that my belief that there's a God can be. I'm just smart enough to realize my beliefs are more hope than reality and would never be so stupid as to put it forth to others as something they should buy into. I don't know where the heck it comes from, so how the heck do I sell that to someone else, going under the ludicrous assumption that I'd want to, above all else, put forth an idea with ZERO substance.

02/24/2010 10:32:37 PM · #1566

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Are you taking a philosophy class or something because you seem to suddenly have as many names for fallacies as Crayola has crayons?

Nope, just playing "Name that Fallacy" with the bogus rationalizations presented. It's not that difficult.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This one is called "Begging the Question." You might also propose that equines could be horses or unicorns, and the fact that every foal we know of so far has been a horse doesn't preclude the possibility that the next one might be a unicorn. Your conclusion is the result of an initial assumption that depends entirely upon a Negative Proof Fallacy.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

there only needs to be one white gumball in the whole jar to ruin the whole principle of Materialism. One.

If one example of the supernatural were found to have merit, the idea would indeed be reconsidered. However, that's also the point of science... all of which so far has emphatically demonstrated the opposite. Contrast this to religion, where a veritable candy store of contradictions are already ignored or interpreted away to preserve the existing dogma.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/24/2010 11:20:02 PM · #1567

This time your answer is lacking Shannon and you know it. The principle is quite sound. Let me ask you how one would tell the difference between an unsolved scientific principle and a problem that had no scientific answer? They would look exactly the same. It would seem like a plain old problem except every time someone picks it up to solve it, they put it back down because they can't. Think about it. If you can explain to me how the two look different, I'd love to hear.

EDIT to add:

So let's look at it another way. We have two groups of questions. Those answered by science and those either unanswered or unable to be answered (since those two look the same they are in the same group). You are pointing to the group of answered questions. Why am I impressed that there are no unanswerable questions in that group? We wouldn't expect there to be any. We would expect them all to be in the other group.

This is why your argument is fallacious (although I can't give you a name, I can still call it what it is).

Message edited by author 2010-02-24 23:45:23.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/24/2010 11:59:39 PM · #1568

That doesn't follow at all. You're still begging the question.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

02/25/2010 12:04:35 AM · #1569

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We have two groups of questions. Those answered by science and those either unanswered or unable to be answered (since those two look the same they are in the same group).

I'd disagree that an unanswered question would "look" exactly the same as one which is unanswerable. It's entirely possible for a scientist to posit a way in which an unanswered question might be answered, even if that method was not immediately available. The example which came to mind when I looked at your statement was determining the structure of DNA. Before the discovery of Xrays, a scientist might have said that it was impossible to discover the exact structure of something too small to resolve at the wavelengths of visible light, but could say "if we only had a form of light with much shorter wavelengths we could 'see' things currently invisible." Once such radiations were discovered and controlled, the solutions to many "unanswerable" questions were worked out by techniques like the Xray diffraction/crystalography (I forget the exact name for the technique) used to work out the form of the double helix.

Problems in determining the nature of the physical universe may not be answered yet, but that doesn't mean they are unaswerable. However, once you propose the existence of an entity outside the physical universe, you are by definition precluding any answer being possible through any direct evidence or experimentation.

02/25/2010 10:03:24 AM · #1570

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We have two groups of questions. Those answered by science and those either unanswered or unable to be answered (since those two look the same they are in the same group).

I'd disagree that an unanswered question would "look" exactly the same as one which is unanswerable. It's entirely possible for a scientist to posit a way in which an unanswered question might be answered, even if that method was not immediately available. The example which came to mind when I looked at your statement was determining the structure of DNA. Before the discovery of Xrays, a scientist might have said that it was impossible to discover the exact structure of something too small to resolve at the wavelengths of visible light, but could say "if we only had a form of light with much shorter wavelengths we could 'see' things currently invisible." Once such radiations were discovered and controlled, the solutions to many "unanswerable" questions were worked out by techniques like the Xray diffraction/crystalography (I forget the exact name for the technique) used to work out the form of the double helix.

Problems in determining the nature of the physical universe may not be answered yet, but that doesn't mean they are unaswerable. However, once you propose the existence of an entity outside the physical universe, you are by definition precluding any answer being possible through any direct evidence or experimentation.

Well, you explain a question that ultimately had an answer, but you fail to tell me how that would look different a priori from a question that does not have an answer. I cannot see how you could tell the difference since the difference, obviously, is whether there is an answer or not (and you don't currently have that information).

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/25/2010 10:03:53 AM · #1571

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thank God a few people are paying attention to things I say. ;) No, I am not a Young Earth Creationist.

Okay.....I truly don't know this stuff....can you do that and be a Christian? What does that do to the Garden of Eden story, the flood, and all that other stuff? How can we evolve, and still have the original sin thing?

Or do you accept evolution except for humans?

This video is only about three minutes long. It explains a lot.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/25/2010 10:08:18 AM · #1572

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Your analogy is flawed because, as Louis pointed out, you are begging the question of whether non-natural phenomenon actually exist. In your analogy we know the jar contains both pink (scientific) and white (supernatural) gumballs. It would be more accurate to think of it this way:

Imagine a vast warehouse. The people inside the warehouse cannot leave the warehouse and they cannot see outside the warehouse. The warehouse is filled with boxes. All of the boxes are sealed with a combination lock. The people in the warehouse are attempting to open the boxes to see what is inside. To do that they have to figure out the combination for each lock on each box. The people have managed to open many of the boxes, but there are still many boxes left to open as well. When the people started opening the boxes they thought the boxes might contain either pink or white gumballs. However, every box they have opened so far has only contained pink gumballs. The possibility still exists that some of the remaining boxes may contain white gumballs, but, given the number of boxes they have already opened the people have a strong suspicion that the idea that there might be white gumballs in some of the boxes was just a rumor. Nevertheless, they keep an open mind. While they no longer expect that a newly opened box will contain white gumballs, they know that it still could be possible, even if increasingly improbable.

02/25/2010 10:19:09 AM · #1573

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Still begging the question. You're arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise. Why should we assume that some questions have no answer?

02/25/2010 10:29:34 AM · #1574

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Imagine a giant jar filled with white gumballs and pink ones. Every time you pick a pink gumball you put it aside in a pile. Every time you pick a white one, you put it back in the jar. If someone came along and saw the pile of pink gumballs, would it be reasonable to assume all the gumballs in the jar were pink? Probably. Would it be correct? Not all all.

Your analogy is flawed because, as Louis pointed out, you are begging the question of whether non-natural phenomenon actually exist. In your analogy we know the jar contains both pink (scientific) and white (supernatural) gumballs. It would be more accurate to think of it this way:

Imagine a vast warehouse. The people inside the warehouse cannot leave the warehouse and they cannot see outside the warehouse. The warehouse is filled with boxes. All of the boxes are sealed with a combination lock. The people in the warehouse are attempting to open the boxes to see what is inside. To do that they have to figure out the combination for each lock on each box. The people have managed to open many of the boxes, but there are still many boxes left to open as well. When the people started opening the boxes they thought the boxes might contain either pink or white gumballs. However, every box they have opened so far has only contained pink gumballs. The possibility still exists that some of the remaining boxes may contain white gumballs, but, given the number of boxes they have already opened the people have a strong suspicion that the idea that there might be white gumballs in some of the boxes was just a rumor. Nevertheless, they keep an open mind. While they no longer expect that a newly opened box will contain white gumballs, they know that it still could be possible, even if increasingly improbable.

Not bad. To make my point clearer, I would add a few details to your analogy. Some of the boxes people have kept trying to find the combination and repeatedly cannot do so. They do keep trying, although another nasty rumor is floating about that some boxes come from a different company and the current method of combination cracking does not work with those. Also, the warehouse is HUGE. The boxes number in the billions and so far we've opened ten thousand. Even more interestingly, every time a box is opened, often it contains 10 more boxes, each with their own combination.

People are still working at those combinations, as they should since it's their job and they aren't in a union, but while many people have dismissed the rumour of the white gumballs, others hold on to the belief because we have opened so few boxes and there ARE those boxes that just can't seem to be cracked. Could it be that these belong to the white gumball company and it has a different lock system?

That's the way I see it at least. Perhaps we just have a different impression of what "increasingly improbably" represents.

In 1894, Albert A. Michelson remarked that in physics there were no more fundamental discoveries to be made. Quoting Lord Kelvin, he continued, â��An eminent physicist remarked that the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."