Science and Theology, the sequel

02/17/2010 02:02:38 PM · #1251

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are happy to live and let live...UNTIL you see something you don't agree with (eg. people knocking on your door), then you are perfectly willing to give them an earful about what you think and how they should live and let live (ie. live your way).

It's called trespassing. It would never occur to me in a million years to walk onto someone's property and tell them what to do. That you don't see the problem with this merely makes my point.

If I don't like what my neighbor does, tough shit, if it's not illegal, then who am I to tell him how to be?

And if it is illegal, I can feel free to call the police.That comes with its own set of issues, thoughh, when you call the cops on a neighbor.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of world you live in.......do you think it's okay to knock on a stranger's door and preach to them?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You don't think you've gotten in trouble on this site, outside Rant, for sharing your opinion in a way others find to be strong and overbearing?

Gotten in trouble? What, because someone doesn';t like what I'm saying in response to them? I've not been booted, admonished, yes, but how you can draw a parallel just shows what I'm talking about.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/17/2010 02:04:57 PM · #1252

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You don't think you've gotten in trouble on this site, outside Rant, for sharing your opinion in a way others find to be strong and overbearing?

I don't think Jeb would have a problem with you voicing a strong opinion.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/17/2010 02:10:06 PM · #1253

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Tell me you never wanted more than this...and I will stop talking now.

Interesting tagline......especially considering the thread.

One of the biggest issues that I have with religions is this sense of thinking that you have to spread the word.

Why isn't it okay to respect the right of people who do not share your faith to *not* have to tell you they don't want to hear it?

Having someone come onto my property, knock on my door, and tell me I need to live their way is, to me, one of the most invasive attitudes I could conceive.

Jeb, you must clearly see that your being here on this thread denotes your complete willingness to proselytize your own world view. It's a bit of the kettle/pot syndrome I'm afraid. And I'm sure you are going to qualify what you do as ok for such and such a reason, but it doesn't look like that from this side at all. You are happy to live and let live...UNTIL you see something you don't agree with (eg. people knocking on your door), then you are perfectly willing to give them an earful about what you think and how they should live and let live (ie. live your way).

You don't think you've gotten in trouble on this site, outside Rant, for sharing your opinion in a way others find to be strong and overbearing?

Amen to that. I was about to respond to this, and first refreshed to find out Doc had beat me to it. In my opinion, Jeb, you have an immense blind spot with regards to your own attitudes and behavior. You are so absolutely convinced of who you are, of what you represent, and of the *rightness* of it all, that you do not realize that simply feeling that way puts you on level footing with any other proselytizer.

R.

Okay.......someone please show me where I tell anyone else how to live. The only time I get out of sorts is when you want to tell ME how to be.

I don't give a rat's ass what any of you do as long as you leave me be, don't presume to tell me how to live, or offer up bullshit, or things you cannot begin to prove as fact.

I don't tell anyone they have to see it my way....if you think that, then you're attaching somethinmg to it that just isn';t there. Yeah, I'll make snide remarks here and there, usually in response to somethinmg I perceive as a shot at me.

If it makes you happy, I'll just leave this discussion, too. It sure seems like you're pretty much guilty of the same thing you're saying I do.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/17/2010 02:18:07 PM · #1254

And on and on we go. Back to the topic at hand...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

02/17/2010 02:22:05 PM · #1255

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The early Christians had two criteria for determining if a NT book was authoritative. It had to be written by an apostle and it had to be written during the lifetime of the apostles ....

There were some books written by apostles not during their lifetimes? Now that really would be news!

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

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

02/17/2010 02:24:54 PM · #1256

Jeb, we're not the ones doing the accusing. You seem to have it in your head that if a Christian tries to explain, in this thread, why he believes what he believes, that this constitutes someone trying to tell YOU how to live. That's BS, friend. I don't see anyone doing that. You're taking it way, way too personal. This thread exists solely because some people WANTED to debate the topic; why are you accusing one side of the debating team of poselytization, but not the other? See what we mean?

And for the record, I've never seen you "tell anyone else how to live", but I'm not seeing Doc do that either. I'm at a loss to understand why you get so wound up about this. This is rant, for gawdsake, it's a place for debating these things.

So don't get all in a twist, OK? Don't go whiny and say you're just gonna go home, that isn't the freaking POINT. You don't hesitate to tell us what YOU think of us, and our positions; why get torqued when we return the courtesy? Don't you even CARE how others perceive you?

R.

02/17/2010 02:53:51 PM · #1257

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The problem is the scientific method only provides data, it does not interpret. Humans do the interpretation and that's where things go back to getting sticky.

The scientific method is a process and a tool for the gathering of data, but it is also a tool for the interpretation of that data. Yes, humans are the ones actually conducting the act of gathering and interpretation, but they are doing it through the scientific process - a process that has been designed and is continually being refined explicitly to compensate for human cognitive, bias and observational failings.

Science is not, and has never claimed to be, error free, but error correction over time is inherent to the process. Nothing even remotely similar can be said of any faith-based process for the generation of truth claims.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/17/2010 03:49:04 PM · #1258

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The problem is the scientific method only provides data, it does not interpret. Humans do the interpretation and that's where things go back to getting sticky.

The scientific method is a process and a tool for the gathering of data, but it is also a tool for the interpretation of that data. Yes, humans are the ones actually conducting the act of gathering and interpretation, but they are doing it through the scientific process - a process that has been designed and is continually being refined explicitly to compensate for human cognitive, bias and observational failings.

Science is not, and has never claimed to be, error free, but error correction over time is inherent to the process. Nothing even remotely similar can be said of any faith-based process for the generation of truth claims.

Nor should it. Philosophy and Science are not the same. They do different things. We've been over this. You left out my hammer/pliars analogy because I think at some level you understand it to be true. Science is most excellent at generating truth claims. However, there are truth statements that cannot be addressed by Science. This is a simple fact of life that too many here do not understand or shudder to contemplate. But that's been said over and over and I doubt arguing about it once more will change anybody's mind.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 15:49:39.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

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

02/17/2010 04:17:28 PM · #1259

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, there are truth statements that cannot be addressed by Science.

An ancient philosophy with NO verifiable process for arriving at facts is even less qualified to address truth.

scarbrd

Leica M10

02/17/2010 04:21:11 PM · #1260

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

ETA: Without specifically promoting the contents, I would refer to this blog for an interesting exercise on the supposed internal consistency of Christianity (although the author has, of late, been doing a lot of not specifically related politics posts): Failing the Insider Test

This blog should be required reading for anyone following this thread, particularly the fist 5 or 6 post. It gets more interesting with the back and forth with a responder named Claire.

Extermely well written and thought provoking on both sides.

02/17/2010 04:30:09 PM · #1261

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You left out my hammer/pliars analogy because I think at some level you understand it to be true. Science is most excellent at generating truth claims. However, there are truth statements that cannot be addressed by Science. This is a simple fact of life that too many here do not understand or shudder to contemplate. But that's been said over and over and I doubt arguing about it once more will change anybody's mind.

And I have said over and over again that science/scientific thinking (that is, the evidence-based process of generating and testing truth claims) is the only reliable way to address conflicting truth claims.

I left out your hammer/pliers analogy because I was trying to cut down on quoted material and it seemed a given. That said, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I simply reject the premise that - even should there be cases where "science" might be an inadequate tool for the evaluation of a particular truth claim - religious and/or faith-based philosophies that do not allow the possibility of external or internal falsification somehow provide a better tool.

ETA: But yes, I absolutely agree with you that one more go round on that carousel, while perhaps amusing, is unlikely to make anyone change their mind. (See a rare moment of complete agreement on the Science and Theology thread. Miracles really do exist!) ;)

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 16:34:28.

02/17/2010 05:08:09 PM · #1262

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

No, if a Christian tells me he believes, that's fine, but when he tells me that what he says, based on an unprovable theory, hypothesis, or whatever reason he has that *HAS* to be a leap of faith, as being fact, then I call BS.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This thread exists solely because some people WANTED to debate the topic; why are you accusing one side of the debating team of poselytization, but not the other? See what we mean?

No. Not one bit.

I'm pretty much a black and white kind of guy with this. The two can co-exist, science and theology, but not as long as anyone tries to categorize them as being the same, or that the conclusions can be arrived at through the same process.

It really seemed that we were making some headway when the people of faith admitted, grudgingly, that there is no way to validate even their own writings. Yes, there are reasonable assumptions that can be made, and there is some support for the authenticity of many of the writings as to their original intent and meaning, but none what the writings are about has one whit of evidence of the existence of God, Jesus as the son of God, or many of the other things that the faith is based upon. If you choose to accept the stories, and accounts of what you believe, fine.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

And for the record, I've never seen you "tell anyone else how to live", but I'm not seeing Doc do that either. I'm at a loss to understand why you get so wound up about this. This is rant, for gawdsake, it's a place for debating these things.

Umm...

Rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way

I was told once that being emotional or passionate in my beliefs was no way to debate. If you're not passionate about what you think or feel, how do you stand for anything? I know I'm certainly not very good at debate, much smarter people can easily twist things around and make me look bad fairly easily, but to me, it isn't so much how clever you are as it is to competently discuss the subjects. Again, I do not offer myself up as an expert on any level. Perhaps it's another one of thoise subjective things......jujst because I don't argue in the same manner as you doesn't mean it's wrong, maybe just different. And try not to make too many assumptions about what I think or feel. I notice an awful lot that you decide I'm twisted up about something that I'm not.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So don't get all in a twist, OK? Don't go whiny and say you're just gonna go home, that isn't the freaking POINT. You don't hesitate to tell us what YOU think of us, and our positions; why get torqued when we return the courtesy? Don't you even CARE how others perceive you?

I wasn't getting whiny, and I'm not going anywhere......I just don't need to be here if you simply don't want to hear it at all. I left the gay rights thread 'cause it made me nuts listening to the very thing that we finally had the believers admit. That there is a very real possibility that their writings have issues because there haven't been originals preserved, and that there is definitely some problems with the transcriptions since these things weren't even written for decades, or in some cases, centuries. If *any* of these claims were offered up as scientific proof, it'd involve hernia operations for people who hurt themselves laughing.

I don't on any level have to be right, Lord knows the older I get, the more often I discover I'm wrong......I KNOW THIS! So why on earth would it make sense on any level for me to try and convince anyone to see things my way? I don't want that! If you're not me, how would that make any sense?

What drives me batshit is the utter and complete refusal of believers to acknowledge the possibility that they may not have it right.

02/17/2010 05:13:26 PM · #1263

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Science is most excellent at generating truth claims.

Scince is also pretty good about creating truths once theories have been proven. Science also can continue on, and create new truths, disprove old ones, and continue on in the search. Science seems to be the bailiwick of those who continue to seek and question......very little in the way of absolutes.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

However, there are truth statements that cannot be addressed by Science. This is a simple fact of life that too many here do not understand or shudder to contemplate.

Has anyone here EVER stated that science can answer everything? I know that's been thrown at the science guys, but I'm pretty sure that the people here who sit on the side of liking answers to questions realize that doesn't always happen.

How can you have any concept of what's known as "The Big Picture" without realizing that there's just too much out there to know?

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

02/17/2010 05:32:18 PM · #1264

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Has anyone here EVER stated that science can answer everything?

In fact, yes, twice at least. The possible caveat was that Science could answer any question "worth asking".

Once by Louis and another by either Shutterpuppy.

Louis' quote was easier to find:
DrAchoo: "one world" means science only. All questions worth asking can only be answered through scientific investigation.
Louis: I do think that. However...
Louis: No. I have to say I think that.

SP hedges just a bit:
To (accurately) say that science does not have all the answers, does not cede the field to non-scientific methods of inquiry. Indeed, to abandon the scientific process (most broadly construed) is to abandon any hope of acquiring reliable and accurate answers.

Man, on a totally unrelated note, I was going through the original thread with this title looking for a link and it was pretty depressing how the conversation was nearly exactly the same as the one from these last few days. You could almost take direct quotes from it and reconstruct this thread. I'm guessing 98% of the rest of DPC either totally ignores these threads (hopefully) or totally rolls their eyes at us.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 17:35:18.

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

02/17/2010 05:50:13 PM · #1265

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Has anyone here EVER stated that science can answer everything?

In fact, yes, twice at least. The possible caveat was that Science could answer any question "worth asking".

Once by Louis and another by either Shutterpuppy.

Louis' quote was easier to find:
DrAchoo: "one world" means science only. All questions worth asking can only be answered through scientific investigation.
Louis: I do think that. However...
Louis: No. I have to say I think that.

SP hedges just a bit:
To (accurately) say that science does not have all the answers, does not cede the field to non-scientific methods of inquiry. Indeed, to abandon the scientific process (most broadly construed) is to abandon any hope of acquiring reliable and accurate answers.

You will note that in both cases, the response is not "science can answer everything," but rather, more accurately, that only way of generating reliable answers would be through scientific inquiry. Again, the scientific process is not infallible, but it is the best method so far devised for the generation and testing of truth claims.

Yet again I will harp on the very important distinction between "science" as a body of accumulated knowledge, and the process and method of scientific, evidence-based inquiry.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Man, on a totally unrelated note, I was going through the original thread with this title looking for a link and it was pretty depressing how the conversation was nearly exactly the same as the one from these last few days. You could almost take direct quotes from it and reconstruct this thread. I'm guessing 98% of the rest of DPC either totally ignores these threads (hopefully) or totally rolls their eyes at us.

True, but johnnyphoto is no Flash, I tell you what.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/17/2010 05:51:41 PM · #1266

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... I'm guessing 98% of the rest of DPC either totally ignores these threads (hopefully) or totally rolls their eyes at us.

Rolling one's eyes is not a good thing... it impedes your vision and prevents you from seeing the dangers ahead. :O)

Ray

02/17/2010 05:55:56 PM · #1267

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Has anyone here EVER stated that science can answer everything?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Okay....it looks like you were the one qualifying that one. Thing is, the qualifier is going to be different between you and Louis.

When you get right down to it, there's a lot less to answer if you take out the supernatural concepts that man has come up with over the years.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

SP hedges just a bit:
To (accurately) say that science does not have all the answers, does not cede the field to non-scientific methods of inquiry. Indeed, to abandon the scientific process (most broadly construed) is to abandon any hope of acquiring reliable and accurate answers.

I don't see how this states that science has the answers. It seems to me to say that the scientific process is the best way to try to get them.

He just says that though science doesn't have the answers, doesn't mean "God did it." defaults into being the correct explanation, as I understand what he wrote.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 17:57:10.

02/17/2010 06:11:38 PM · #1268

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
The early Christians had two criteria for determining if a NT book was authoritative. It had to be written by an apostle and it had to be written during the lifetime of the apostles ....

There were some books written by apostles not during their lifetimes? Now that really would be news!

No, and that's the point. Many documents were written in the first few centuries that falsely claimed apostolic authorship. The early church fathers weren't idiots and when a letter came around after AD 64 that had St. Paul's name on it, they new it was a fake.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

What drives me batshit is the utter and complete refusal of believers to acknowledge the possibility that they may not have it right.

I don't think that I have it all right. In fact, I know I don't have it all right. No one person can completely understand God, which is why he revealed everything we need to know about him in The Bible. Like you said Jeb, "If you're not passionate about what you think or feel, how do you stand for anything?". I know I'm wrong about some things, but I passionately believe that The Bible isn't wrong.

02/17/2010 06:21:50 PM · #1269

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

But God didn't write the Bible, so he didn't reveal anything. There are accounts of what people have purported to know, things supposedly done, edicts handed down, and no evidence to substantiate it. So it has to remain belief and faith.

One thing that troubles me is that it seems that it would behoove God to clarify a great deal if suffering, misery, and angst caused in his name was of concern to him.

How would you reconcile that? Those of us who believe that life and society has had to evolve will be just that much harder to convince the older these tenets get. You know that much of what is described as typical life no longer applies, so why don't we have any amendments, or Bible 2.1? There's a New Testament that negates the old, right?

BTW, what do the Jews use as their Bible? Don't they have the same God, just slightly older?

ETA: What about all tyhe people who lived according to the Old Testament, that were proper children of God, and didn't change over to the new & improved God? Where do they stand in the salvation picture? Do they get a pass 'cause they were doing it right before the change? I know these may seem like weird questions, but I just wonder about things like that, just like I wonder if by Christian standards, Mahatma Gandhi doesn't have a place in Heaven 'cause he wasn't a Christian.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 18:28:39.

02/17/2010 06:25:17 PM · #1270

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I know I'm wrong about some things, but I passionately believe that The Bible isn't wrong.

I am actually going to give you credit here for using the word "believe" versus "know." While your epistemological stance drives me crazy, I give you credit for at least (apparently) understanding that it stands upon an assumed, not known, premise.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 18:25:32.

02/17/2010 06:56:45 PM · #1271

I have a question for Jason & Johnny.

Given your acceptance of faith and belief, had you grown up in the home of Gandhi, is there any question that you would be Hindu?

02/17/2010 07:03:39 PM · #1272

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

One thing that troubles me is that it seems that it would behoove God to clarify a great deal if suffering, misery, and angst caused in his name was of concern to him.

How would you reconcile that? Those of us who believe that life and society has had to evolve will be just that much harder to convince the older these tenets get. You know that much of what is described as typical life no longer applies, so why don't we have any amendments, or Bible 2.1? There's a New Testament that negates the old, right?

First of all, The Bible says that God will judge those who have misused his Word, and those that have done horrible things in His name. The Book of Revelation basically says that God's wrath is building up against Satan and one day he will unleash it and destroy Satan and all those aligned with him (those who don't follow Christ). The only reason we're allowed to live is because God is patient with humanity and wants all those who will accept him to come to him. Second, God doesn't change his mind. Whatever principles God wanted people to live by in the 1st century, he wants us to live by today. Human societies change, but God doesn't. God will not change his mind or his eternal word to compensate for humanity's changes. I know you don't believe in the Christian God, but if you did would you really expect him to bow down to our demands? In the U.S. we can amend the Constitution, and that's a good thing. But do you really think God should allow some form of human democracy to tell him what to do? The Supremacy of God is actually something to feel very secure about. God can't be corrupted by human desires like politicians are, God is unchanging.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

BTW, what do the Jews use as their Bible? Don't they have the same God, just slightly older?

The Jews use the Torah, which is basically the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. The Jews do worship the same God. However, God is triune (Father, Spirit, Son) and the Jews (according to Christians) fall short because they only worship and believe in the Father. Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, and we can approach God in a personal way and we have a whole new understanding of God because of what he has revealed about himself through Jesus. Judaism miss these essential things.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

ETA: What about all tyhe people who lived according to the Old Testament, that were proper children of God, and didn't change over to the new & improved God? Where do they stand in the salvation picture? Do they get a pass 'cause they were doing it right before the change? I know these may seem like weird questions, but I just wonder about things like that, just like I wonder if by Christian standards, Mahatma Gandhi doesn't have a place in Heaven 'cause he wasn't a Christian.

According to The Bible, Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, period. The Jews know this, but they refuse to believe that Jesus is the messiah. They're still waiting for the messiah to come and bring Salvation. There are different interpretations about what will happen to the Jews. They are still a special people though. All of Israels ancient neighbors disappeared centuries ago, but the Jews came out of nowhere and reestablished the nation of Israel (which was prophesied in The Bible). Also, while Jews only make up 0.2% of the world population, 22% of the Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded to Jews since 1901. At least historically and statistically, the Jews are still being blessed by someone or something...

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

I guess I'm not as arrogant and close-minded as you originally thought :)

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

02/17/2010 07:09:25 PM · #1273

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

God doesn't change his mind... God can't be corrupted by human desires like politicians are, God is unchanging.

So much for prayer.

Message edited by author 2010-02-17 19:10:22.

02/17/2010 07:15:35 PM · #1274

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have a question for Jason & Johnny.

Given your acceptance of faith and belief, had you grown up in the home of Gandhi, is there any question that you would be Hindu?

Ooo! Nice question. Personally I believe in a certain level of predestination, so if God wanted to save me he would have figured out a way if I had grown up in Gandhi's home. Predestination is a HUGE and controversial topic even within Christianity, but what it comes down to is the idea that humans cannot earn Salvation on our own. There is some level of choice required on our part, otherwise love for God wouldn't be genuine. But faith is a gift from God, and you have to be called before you can receive it. God's grace is not like an apple that grows on a tree that you can reach up and pick at will. God's grace is like rain that is always falling down. We can't choose where the rainclouds go but we can choose to look up and let the rain fall on us when it does come. That analogy doesn't even scratch the surface of predestination, but maybe it will give you an idea of what I believe. Predestination has such a negative connotation, but really the basic principle is that God saves us by his grace, and we are unable to earn or receive Salvation on our own apart from God's grace. Of course, nobody knows who God gives grace to except God, and bad things happen when humans try to play the guessing game (i.e. try and figure out who's in and who's out).