The Co-existence of Science and Theology

11/22/2007 12:58:18 AM · #601

Originally posted by yanko:

Reason and faith is much like a light switch. You can't turn on one without turning off the other. ;)

Haha, now you are just trying to egg me on... ;)

zxaar

11/22/2007 06:44:08 AM · #602

BUMPITY

11/22/2007 07:26:22 AM · #603

Originally posted by Flash:

To those that celebrate it; have a great Thanksgiving. I always enjoy the banter here. One of the things I can be thankful for.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Indeed. Have a great holiday and come back for more assault and bantery.

OHMIGAWD!!!!! He's done it!

The DPC Forums motto: The place for assault and bantery!

ROTFLMSOAO!!!!!

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/22/2007 07:58:03 AM · #604

Originally posted by RonB:

Louis: Well, I can fabricate a summary of what transpired to make it look like you don't know squat about logic.
Ron: Yes, you can. But sentient beings can see through your ruse.

All right then, let's look at it a bit more seriously.

In response to an accusation that the entire bible was being labelled "a lie" despite "archaeological evidence", I suggested that nobody was disputing that it has historical and cultural context placing it in the middle east roughly during the time its stories apparently take place. I said that the discrepancy comes in the events as reported, offering that they are allegories, and as such, contain discrepancies.

You seemed to like the structure of the original paragraph, and used it verbatim, replacing seminal elements with your opinion on evolution.

I pointed out by way of a ridiculous parallel usage of my own paragraph using breakfast cereal that this is merely a semantic trick, and prone to rebuttal because, by necessity, you cannot support any claims you choose to make in such a statement, it being restricted by the model you're attempting to squeeze your argument into.

You seemed to suggest that my original paragraph was prone to exactly the same thing, not on the basis of any argument that was put forward in it, but simply because it follows its own model, ignoring the fact that it is the original model and doesn't seek to use any semantic trickery to make its claims.

Although not as dramatic as other lapses of logic shown here, your reasoning nevertheless suffers from the same problem of false cause.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/22/2007 08:19:06 AM · #605

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
Louis: Well, I can fabricate a summary of what transpired to make it look like you don't know squat about logic.
Ron: Yes, you can. But sentient beings can see through your ruse.

All right then, let's look at it a bit more seriously.

To put it more succinctly take the structure:

1. All A are B.
2. All B are C.
3. Therefore all A are C.

The conclusion (3) is only valid if both 1 and 2 are accurate. The "syllogism" is faultless, but it relies on the accuracy of the A/B statements.

1. All men are mammals
2. All mammals are warm-blooded creatures
3. Therefore all men are warm-blooded

The above is coherent.

1. All men are warm-blooded creatures
2. All warm-blooded creatures are mammals
3. Therefore all men are mammals

This one is NOT coherent, because 2 is not true (the tuna, for example, is a warm-blooded fish). The conclusion happens to be valid (all men are indeed mammals), but the syllogism is flawed because its components are not all true.

************

It makes no sense to refute a syllogism by replacing its terms with nonsense and exclaiming "see, it doesn't work!" â�� these logical equations are not some sort of magic; they are entirely dependent upon the accuracy of their components.

R.

Message edited by author 2007-11-22 08:21:02.

11/22/2007 10:35:30 AM · #606

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It makes no sense to refute a syllogism by replacing its terms with nonsense and exclaiming "see, it doesn't work!"

It can be fun though. :-)

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/23/2007 04:19:19 PM · #607

Hey, I'd just like to thank everyone who participated....I know I sure learned a lot and had some fun, too.

Hopefully, nobody's umm........jewels got too bruised, and I do appreciate it that we didn't have to get sanctioned during the festivities.

You're all too damn smart for your own good, I did learn that, so it'll be a long time 'til I light a fuse like that and toss it into the center of the room.

Thanks again.....see you out there with a camera!

cheekymunky

Canon EOS-40D

11/23/2007 04:40:33 PM · #608

we owe you a thanks for starting it dude! its been really interesting.

Message edited by author 2007-11-23 16:40:46.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/24/2007 11:18:46 AM · #609

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

It makes no sense to refute a syllogism by replacing its terms with nonsense and exclaiming "see, it doesn't work!"

Anyway, my point was that he wasn't using a legitimate syllogism. He was cramming his opinion into a pre-written sentence, then later pretending that because his argument couldn't fly, neither could mine.

Message edited by author 2007-11-24 11:19:10.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/24/2007 12:40:55 PM · #610

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
It makes no sense to refute a syllogism by replacing its terms with nonsense and exclaiming "see, it doesn't work!"

Anyway, my point was that he wasn't using a legitimate syllogism. He was cramming his opinion into a pre-written sentence, then later pretending that because his argument couldn't fly, neither could mine.

Right, that's exactly what I'm saying too. Or in any case the second part: the syllogism itself is not flawed, just the terms he put into it, so to speak. I'm on your side here :-)

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

11/24/2007 03:01:48 PM · #611

There's a pretty well-written Op-Ed piece on the topic in today's NY Times.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/25/2007 01:37:16 PM · #612

Originally posted by GeneralE:

There's a pretty well-written Op-Ed piece on the topic in today's NY Times.

There seem to be a number of physicists and professors who disagree with Dr. Daviesâ�� premises and conclusions:

Jerry Coyne, Nathan Myhrvold, Lawrence Krauss, Scott Atran, Sean Carroll and Jeremy Bernstein

Mark Hoofnagle

Janet Stemwedel

Dave Bacon

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

11/25/2007 02:41:13 PM · #613

I think Jerry Coyne's response is interesting. Particularly #2. I'll quote below:

"Davies claims that the "faith" of science is based on something outside the universe, like "an unexplained set of physical laws. " The lack of a current explanation for why the laws are as they are, however, does not make physics a faith. It only means that we don't have the answer. Indeed, Davies thinks we might be able to come up with an answer, one that does not involve supernatural intervention. So what, exactly, are scientists taking on faith here? What do we believe to be true without any evidence? I don't get it."

The bolded text, to me, is a fallacy. Davies is contending that Science today does not have the answer for what is known as the anthropic princple. He further contends that Science takes on faith that the answer does not involve a Supreme Being. Finally he points out that the current popular answer, a multiverse, is no more scientific than a Supreme Being as the multiverse idea is untestable and thus not a truly scientific theory.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/25/2007 03:18:59 PM · #614

Originally posted by milo655321:

There seem to be a number of physicists and professors who disagree with Dr. Daviesâ�� premises and conclusions ...

I didn't say I agreed with them either, just that I thought the piece was a well-written contribution to the discussion. :-)

11/25/2007 03:31:57 PM · #615

So like it or not, science and theology *DO* co-exist.......it's just that some aren't really happy about it!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II

11/25/2007 03:46:57 PM · #616

I do think there is a coexistance between Science and Faith. But they are probably more exclusive than inclusive of each other.

Science is clearly the best mode for answering questions about the physical world. The scientific method has been nothing but a phenomenal success since its inception around the renaissance.

Likewise however, faith or philosophy is far better at attempting to answer non-scientific questions about morality, ethics, purpose and the like.

I do think some people figure that Science has been so successful at doing what it does that it can be used in all things. This leads to trouble and conflict.

EducatedSavage

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

11/25/2007 04:20:56 PM · #617

I think the issue between faith and science is that they address different things. It seems that science addresses the nature of the world and the universe where philosophy and religion address the nature of reality instead.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

11/25/2007 04:53:18 PM · #618

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Science is clearly the best mode for answering questions about the physical world. The scientific method has been nothing but a phenomenal success since its inception around the renaissance.

Likewise however, faith or philosophy is far better at attempting to answer non-scientific questions about morality, ethics, purpose and the like.

I do think some people figure that Science has been so successful at doing what it does that it can be used in all things. This leads to trouble and conflict.

I would say that the vast majority of the world's recorded "trouble and conflict" stems from the forceable imposition of some system of "faith" upon unwilling "converts," with profitable exploitation of natural resources and political control of pools of cheap labor the primary motivational factors.

There's no question that science and technology have made the means of conquest progressively more deadly, be the decision to use those weapons has almost always rested with men of "faith."

11/25/2007 05:39:05 PM · #619

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He further contends that Science takes on faith that the answer does not involve a Supreme Being.

I don't recall reading that in the article. Please point it out. In any event, it is an oxymoron to not believe the unscientific claim of something "on faith". For example, I don't take it on faith that a giant turtle does not support the universe. Rather, in order for such a preposterous claim to even begin to make any sense to me, it's going to have to be tangibly demonstrated that it in fact does.

11/25/2007 05:59:20 PM · #620

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

He further contends that Science takes on faith that the answer does not involve a Supreme Being.

Originally posted by Louis:

For example, I don't take it on faith that a giant turtle does not support the universe. Rather, in order for such a preposterous claim to even begin to make any sense to me, it's going to have to be tangibly demonstrated that it in fact does.

Well, see, you are taking in in such a sense that it is preposterous to you, yet you do NOT have any concrete proof that this is neither possible or conceivable.

I take it on faith simply because it doesn't seem likely from scientific studies by people much better at science than I.

Not to mention that there's no evidence to support the idea.

But should we find really, really big turtle droppings way out in space once we master inter-stellar travel, then things might be different.

Much like the guys in the fourth ship.......the one that sailed off the edge!

11/25/2007 06:02:21 PM · #621

Originally posted by EducatedSavage:

I'm sorry.....I just gotta jump on this one.

SCIENCE deals with reality, religion deals with faith, spirituality deals with existence.

At least the way I see it!.....8>)

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

11/25/2007 09:22:31 PM · #622

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He further contends that Science takes on faith that the answer does not involve a Supreme Being.

I don't recall reading that in the article. Please point it out. In any event, it is an oxymoron to not believe the unscientific claim of something "on faith". For example, I don't take it on faith that a giant turtle does not support the universe. Rather, in order for such a preposterous claim to even begin to make any sense to me, it's going to have to be tangibly demonstrated that it in fact does.

It was in the bolded text and it was implied, but I am fairly confident of the implication. "it only means we don't have the answer (but we firmly believe the answer will fall in the scientific domain)." I know enough scientists to know that implication was firmly there.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

11/25/2007 10:17:50 PM · #623

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I do think some people figure that Science has been so successful at doing what it does that it can be used in all things. This leads to trouble and conflict.

Far more trouble, conflict, suffering and death has been a result of religious "faith" than any such tragedy stemming from science, if you can even find such an example.