|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 10/10/2004 : 20:57:24 [Permalink]
|
Of course science has limits. Of course "Last Thursdayism" is baseless. Of course ignoring the likely for the unlikely is silly. And of course rejecting the idea that there is an objective reality is unreasonable. But these obvious things don't do anything to limit any god which might be hiding out there, they only put limits on the limits imposed upon gods by people.
The Christian God is extremely limited, simply by a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a god who cannot change His mind about anything, now. His most-ardent followers say, for example, that if you don't accept Christ as Saviour, then no matter how "good" you are in every other aspect of your life, God must judge you sub-par, and send you off to the lake of fire. Such is not a limit imposed by science, nor by me (I find it turns the idea of God into a ridiculous robotic judgement machine).
But, my point was and is that it's not a problem with science if people choose to believe ludicrious things. There is so much evidence for evolution and evolutionary theory, it would be unreasonable to reject it. Yet people who've never seen the evidence, or don't understand it, reject it out of hand because they think it conflicts with their ideas about their God. The evidence for evolution isn't a set of beliefs. God is. One can change one's beliefs, but one cannot change facts.
Thus, the facts aren't at fault when they come into conflict with beliefs. No more than a cleaver is at fault for being used in a murder. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 03:12:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course science has limits. Of course "Last Thursdayism" is baseless. Of course ignoring the likely for the unlikely is silly. And of course rejecting the idea that there is an objective reality is unreasonable. But these obvious things don't do anything to limit any god which might be hiding out there, they only put limits on the limits imposed upon gods by people.
Well I see what you mean now, and I think I agree with it.
quote:
But, my point was and is that it's not a problem with science if people choose to believe ludicrious things. There is so much evidence for evolution and evolutionary theory, it would be unreasonable to reject it. Yet people who've never seen the evidence, or don't understand it, reject it out of hand because they think it conflicts with their ideas about their God. The evidence for evolution isn't a set of beliefs. God is. One can change one's beliefs, but one cannot change facts.
But this is where I actually agree with them. The Genesis story is incompatible with modern science. In this case, a certain story about this particular god is clearly not right. The god may still exist, I agree with that now. But if they believe in the creation as described in the Bible, then, their beliefs are in fact in conflict with modern science. I can't see how it's not. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2004 : 19:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Maverick wrote:quote:
But this is where I actually agree with them. The Genesis story is incompatible with modern science. In this case, a certain story about this particular god is clearly not right. The god may still exist, I agree with that now. But if they believe in the creation as described in the Bible, then, their beliefs are in fact in conflict with modern science. I can't see how it's not.
It's not necessarily in conflict because if the proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis are correct about that, they may also be correct in thinking that the things science tells us are all a vast deception planted by Satan. If that's the case, science isn't invalidated, it's just that the evidence and assumptions upon which science is based have been carefully crafted to give us apparently-reasonable, but false answers. That doesn't actually invalidate science, as the same axioms and procedures would have given us the right answers had the correct evidence not been tampered with (unless, of course, it is "objective reality" which cannot be trusted). Science, after all, is not fault-free, especially when the original observations are purposefully falsified.
But, there's no way to test for that possibility. It lies as far outside the realm of scientific probing as does "Last Thursdayism."
And again, my point is that science is not "attacking" the Genesis story by telling us something different. The evidence itself doesn't care one little bit about what was written down by some people somewhere over 2,500 years ago. If they wrote it down exactly as God told 'em to, it's God's fault for not putting in a specific warning about Satan re-arranging the bones of the animals killed in the Flood, and removing most of them. And it's either God's fault or the fundamentalists' fault if God only made suggestions about what to write, or if the Jews decided to write a bunch of stuff down without Divine help.
No matter which, the number of Christians worldwide who don't treat the Bible as a science and history textbook far outnumbers those who do, yet they all think they're getting into Heaven, and the others are going to Hell. Science has nothing to do with such doctrinal differences. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 08:04:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But this is where I actually agree with them. The Genesis story is incompatible with modern science.
But we're forgetting a simple factor here.
We're assuming the believers are right about the way the Genesis was intended to be understood, that is, that because it was written that way, it must be taken literally.
I, for instance, think the Genesis narration is compatible with evolution, if you take it as a metaphor and not a literal narration of events. Because some people think it has to be interpreted literally, doesn't change a possible original intent of it.
Anyone who sculpts clay knows it takes quite awhile for you to come to a certain outcome. You start with a rough draft (much like a drawing) and go refining it through time. A day, also, is a very relative thing. Who knows the standard Earth timespan that might have rolled between Day 1 and Day 2?
Which doesn't mean the Bible is the word of God. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 08:47:37 [Permalink]
|
My point is made, thank y'all, most kindly. With the possible exception of myself and ignoring some mild flames here & there, verlch brings out the best in us.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 09:34:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
It's not necessarily in conflict because if the proponents of a literal interpretation of Genesis are correct about that, they may also be correct in thinking that the things science tells us are all a vast deception planted by Satan. If that's the case, science isn't invalidated, it's just that the evidence and assumptions upon which science is based have been carefully crafted to give us apparently-reasonable, but false answers. That doesn't actually invalidate science, as the same axioms and procedures would have given us the right answers had the correct evidence not been tampered with (unless, of course, it is "objective reality" which cannot be trusted). Science, after all, is not fault-free, especially when the original observations are purposefully falsified.
But, there's no way to test for that possibility. It lies as far outside the realm of scientific probing as does "Last Thursdayism."
I would still say that almost any claim can be tested. What I mean is that we can look for evidence supporting a claim, and if there aren't any, then we can reject it or ignore it. This goes for religious claims as well, including the existence of whatever. That is why I think that if someone seriously propose religious myths as literal descriptions of a reality it can and should be tested. If they don't want their particular religion to be treated like any other set of claims, then they can only do one thing: to say that their myths are just that, and should not be interpreted literally.
quote:
And again, my point is that science is not "attacking" the Genesis story by telling us something different. The evidence itself doesn't care one little bit about what was written down by some people somewhere over 2,500 years ago.
Of course. I hope I didn't say that it did...
quote:
If they wrote it down exactly as God told 'em to, it's God's fault for not putting in a specific warning about Satan re-arranging the bones of the animals killed in the Flood, and removing most of them. And it's either God's fault or the fundamentalists' fault if God only made suggestions about what to write, or if the Jews decided to write a bunch of stuff down without Divine help.
No matter which, the number of Christians worldwide who don't treat the Bible as a science and history textbook far outnumbers those who do, yet they all think they're getting into Heaven, and the others are going to Hell. Science has nothing to do with such doctrinal differences.
So what you're saying is that a large majority of the christians worldwide would not believe the creation, the flood and all the other stuff? They're just reading and quoting the Bible for fun as everyone else does with fiction? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 09:43:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
But this is where I actually agree with them. The Genesis story is incompatible with modern science.
But we're forgetting a simple factor here.
We're assuming the believers are right about the way the Genesis was intended to be understood, that is, that because it was written that way, it must be taken literally.
Obviously it can't be taken literally. Those who are religious can't really take their own book literally, which might be interesting...
quote:
I, for instance, think the Genesis narration is compatible with evolution, if you take it as a metaphor and not a literal narration of events. Because some people think it has to be interpreted literally, doesn't change a possible original intent of it.
In that case it could be compatible with almost anything... or more likely, nothing. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 14:37:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In that case it could be compatible with almost anything... or more likely, nothing.
Exactly. Hence why most religious texts are so ambiguous you can understand basically anything from them, thus adapting to one's own vision of life and things in general smoothly. If, of course, you're open minded enough to see beyond the literal written word.
Of course, by focusing on minor details, the average fundie forgets the social and historical differences from then to back on, and end being quite close-minded. You loose the symbology.
After all, it was written one hell of a long time ago. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 14:39:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What it seems you're missing is the possibility that science is not a test for any god, and science cannot contradict "last Thursdayism," the idea that everything we see was created last Thursday, and our memories and knowledge are all implanted.
... or the idea you're really trapped in a world of illusions created by superintelligent machines ;) |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2004 : 18:40:49 [Permalink]
|
Maverick wrote:quote:
I would still say that almost any claim can be tested. What I mean is that we can look for evidence supporting a claim, and if there aren't any, then we can reject it or ignore it. This goes for religious claims as well, including the existence of whatever.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, the claim is that God must be accepted or rejected on faith, He will simply bend the results to hide His presence if a test is attempted. Thus, an "explanation" of negative results is built into the claim itself, making the entire thing unscientific from the start.
(This is actually why any test of prayer on health fails on its premise, which is that God can change reality if asked nicely. If the premise is true, it makes all scientific testing invalid - including that on intercessory prayer - as we have no way to determine which results are due to God's intervention and which aren't.)
I would also challenge you, Maverick, to outline an experiment suitable for determining the probability that my favorite color is blue. This is, of course, rhetorical, and just another way of suggesting that there are a lot of claims out there which cannot be tested.quote:
That is why I think that if someone seriously propose religious myths as literal descriptions of a reality it can and should be tested. If they don't want their particular religion to be treated like any other set of claims, then they can only do one thing: to say that their myths are just that, and should not be interpreted literally.
I think part of the problem is that in this post-modernist world, there are plenty of people around who simply don't accept science as being reflective of "reality."quote:
So what you're saying is that a large majority of the christians worldwide would not believe the creation, the flood and all the other stuff? They're just reading and quoting the Bible for fun as everyone else does with fiction?
No, they "believe" in these things as either metaphors or parables. They quote the Bible in order to teach other people about God, and not about the world itself. God "created" the universe, in that He caused the Big Bang to happen. He brought forth humans on this planet through tinkering with evolution. As far as science is concerned, neither claim is any different from "it happened naturally," since God didn't leave His signature on anything.
So no, Catholics and non-fundamentalist Protestants don't treat the Bible as fiction, that's for sure. It's their guidebook to Salvation, as opposed to being an allegedly-accurate cosmological, geological, physical and biological history. I mean, they consider the Gospels to be a largely-accurate history of Jesus' life, but beyond that and some of the obviously-historical Old-Testament Books, the stories exist for reasons other than documentation of history. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 08:07:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
In that case it could be compatible with almost anything... or more likely, nothing.
Exactly. Hence why most religious texts are so ambiguous you can understand basically anything from them, thus adapting to one's own vision of life and things in general smoothly. If, of course, you're open minded enough to see beyond the literal written word.
Of course, by focusing on minor details, the average fundie forgets the social and historical differences from then to back on, and end being quite close-minded. You loose the symbology.
After all, it was written one hell of a long time ago.
Exactly. I can't say for sure, of course, but I don't think it's entirely unlikely that those who wrote the Genesis, for example, well knew that they had no idea about how the universe came about, and that they wrote it as fiction in lack of anything better. Therefor I would think it's embarassing that some of us, in an age when science and reason is supposedly more widespread than ever before, actually believe it is a description of reality even remotely close to it. And that is why I want those who take the Genesis word literally to actually admit that it is completely incompatible with modern science. That would be great. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 08:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Exactly. I can't say for sure, of course, but I don't think it's entirely unlikely that those who wrote the Genesis, for example, well knew that they had no idea about how the universe came about, and that they wrote it as fiction in lack of anything better. Therefor I would think it's embarassing that some of us, in an age when science and reason is supposedly more widespread than ever before, actually believe it is a description of reality even remotely close to it. And that is why I want those who take the Genesis word literally to actually admit that it is completely incompatible with modern science. That would be great.
After all, people usually fear what they cannot understand. Lack of understanding of science induces the average John Doe who's never tried to understand to automatically fear it - and downright deny it, in some cases.
It's quite disappoing how some people see science as something out of this world. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2004 : 09:57:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, the claim is that God must be accepted or rejected on faith, He will simply bend the results to hide His presence if a test is attempted. Thus, an "explanation" of negative results is built into the claim itself, making the entire thing unscientific from the start.
But that's just an excuse tailored for this situation. One might tell the opponent that the excuse, too, is without evidence. The only thing they do is to add more and more of that.
quote:
(This is actually why any test of prayer on health fails on its premise, which is that God can change reality if asked nicely. If the premise is true, it makes all scientific testing invalid - including that on intercessory prayer - as we have no way to determine which results are due to God's intervention and which aren't.)
Well, if the prayer don't work, then they don't work no matter the reason for them not working. It could be so that talking to oneself doesn't have much of an effect of anything or anyone else, and that would be the simplest explanation. Or, one could make more claims about the god in question. More and more claims that are unsupported.
quote:
I would also challenge you, Maverick, to outline an experiment suitable for determining the probability that my favorite color is blue. This is, of course, rhetorical, and just another way of suggesting that there are a lot of claims out there which cannot be tested.
Ok, rethorical, I know, but just for fun... It depends on what would make it a favourite colour, right? Is it because of the person uses the colour everywhere? Or is it because the colour has a good effect in any way? Maybe these things could be looked into.
quote:
I think part of the problem is that in this post-modernist world, there are plenty of people around who simply don't accept science as being reflective of "reality."
I really have to look this up before I can say anything about postmodernism...
quote:
No, they "believe" in these things as either metaphors or parables. They quote the Bible in order to teach other people about God, and not about the world itself. God "created" the universe, in that He caused the Big Bang to happen. He brought forth humans on this planet through tinkering with evolution. As far as science is concerned, neither claim is any different from "it happened naturally," since God didn't leave His signature on anything.
So no, Catholics and non-fundamentalist Protestants don't treat the Bible as fiction, that's for sure. It's their guidebook to Salvation, as opposed to being an allegedly-accurate cosmological, geological, physical and biological history. I mean, they consider the Gospels to be a largely-accurate history of Jesus' life, but beyond that and some of the obviously-historical Old-Testament Books, the stories exist for reasons other than documentation of history.
Well obviously they don't believe all parts of it, which is of course good. But I'm mostly thinking about those who do believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. They must either provide some sort of support for it, or admit that it is indeed fiction. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2004 : 03:01:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course science has limits. Of course "Last Thursdayism" is baseless. Of course ignoring the likely for the unlikely is silly. And of course rejecting the idea that there is an objective reality is unreasonable. But these obvious things don't do anything to limit any god which might be hiding out there, they only put limits on the limits imposed upon gods by people.
The Christian God is extremely limited, simply by a literal interpretation of the Bible. This is a god who cannot change His mind about anything, now. His most-ardent followers say, for example, that if you don't accept Christ as Saviour, then no matter how "good" you are in every other aspect of your life, God must judge you sub-par, and send you off to the lake of fire. Such is not a limit imposed by science, nor by me (I find it turns the idea of God into a ridiculous robotic judgement machine).
But, my point was and is that it's not a problem with science if people choose to believe ludicrious things. There is so much evidence for evolution and evolutionary theory, it would be unreasonable to reject it. Yet people who've never seen the evidence, or don't understand it, reject it out of hand because they think it conflicts with their ideas about their God. The evidence for evolution isn't a set of beliefs. God is. One can change one's beliefs, but one cannot change facts.
Thus, the facts aren't at fault when they come into conflict with beliefs. No more than a cleaver is at fault for being used in a murder.
Not really. God left us the bible because we are not immortal, yet. We would not get to witness the history of the world first hand, so God left another witness, so we wouldn't be left in darkness, the bible answers every subject humanistic science has tried to answer!
The reality is, things are as they are in this world. Science attempts to explain them to suit science. Things it cannot answer are left alone, because in reality, things are as they are in this world!
God sent his Son to save this world and to die for our sins. To God this act of his Creation, Jesus, would be enough pain for the universe to wash away every act of disgrace and sin the maker of the Universe had the displeasure to notice. We are a world in rebellion from our maker and we are cut of from His glory. By the grace of Jesus we are going to be able to interact with God in the way in which He designed it! Courtesy of Eve and her inability to listen to God and stay by the side of her husband!
So to any that don't have a mother, you truely do, Eve is the 'Mother of All Living', is what the bible calls this lady. I thought that was sweet.
The choice is there, but for some a hard one. Free will is an awesome ability, and with it comes results. So choose and choose well!
Evolution is not fact, or we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it. If you could prove it completly you all would be waving it in the face of every bible believing human on this planet. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2004 : 03:26:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Evolution is not fact, or we wouldn't be sitting here arguing about it. If you could prove it completly you all would be waving it in the face of every bible believing human on this planet.
And yet again, I state that science is not in the business of proving anything. Science does no more than make observations, collecting evidence to form hypotisis and ultimatly, theories. By the time an hypotisis becomes a theory, it is so well supported that it might just as well be a fact.
I've got a question: what's the big deal with immortality? Why is it so important? Seems to me, the afterlife would get pretty dull after the first millina, or so.
Edited for 5:00 AM punctuation.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/18/2004 03:28:18 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
