Current approach to science is wrong and undermines the authority of the word of God

[autumnnight]

These kinds of discussions always fascinate me. I do not understand exactly why a Muslim believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why a Hindu believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why someone would believe in reincarnation. I do not understand exactly why an atheist chooses not to believe.

 

However, I do not feel the need to bash them, make fun of them, scoff at them, prove to the world they are stupid, grill them, or otherwise show my arse to them. Their different belief or lack of belief does not really...affect me.

 

So it's always fascinating to see the character revealed in those who MUST belittle everyone who has faith. I thought we were all about tolerance. No, wait, I thought it was people like ME who were supposed to be the intolerant ones, while everyone else is open-minded and tolerant.

 

Funny that.

[Clair93]

These kinds of discussions always fascinate me. I do not understand exactly why a Muslim believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why a Hindu believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why someone would believe in reincarnation. I do not understand exactly why an atheist chooses not to believe.

 

Atheists don't "choose not to believe". The evidence is poor, therefore we don't believe. Atheistic attitude to Islam, Hindi, whatever is exactly your attitude, we just go one step further and call bull**** on all of them, rather than all except one. So now you understand why an atheist can't believe, it's about using critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence, rather than basing them on what we want to be true.

[M30USA]

These kinds of discussions always fascinate me. I do not understand exactly why a Muslim believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why a Hindu believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why someone would believe in reincarnation. I do not understand exactly why an atheist chooses not to believe.

 

However, I do not feel the need to bash them, make fun of them, scoff at them, prove to the world they are stupid, grill them, or otherwise show my arse to them. Their different belief or lack of belief does not really...affect me.

 

So it's always fascinating to see the character revealed in those who MUST belittle everyone who has faith. I thought we were all about tolerance. No, wait, I thought it was people like ME who were supposed to be the intolerant ones, while everyone else is open-minded and tolerant.

 

Funny that.

 

As long as the focus stays on the doctrine and belief, and not the person, it's all good. I understand many people can't tell the difference--as they equate criticizing a belief to criticizing the person. I generally avoid discussions with people like this altogether because no progress can be made.

[endlessabyss]

But science delivers. Cures to disease. Knowledge of the universe. Knowledge of living organisms. Making human lives longer! All because of the scientific method. Facts are facts.

 

 

When it comes to origins, science is pure speculation. Just because humans have found cures to certain ailments, and can make humans live longer in no way, or form, disproves God. We can study the human body, and the universe, but we can't show how it originated. That is a mystery, and the most logical explanation is that it was created, due to the overwhelming complexity of these entities.

 

The problem with accepting faith as a viable means to knowledge and truth is that, quite literally, anything goes. Anybody can believe anything is true and have equal footing to hold their beliefs as absolute.

 

 

Welp, for me, Christianity has evidence. I know Jesus existed, and I know He was crucified, so I put my faith it his claims, because after looking at the evidence it is the only viable option to go with.

 

Which of course is ridiculous. For example, the Bible says Jesus is the son of God. The Qur'an says Jesus is not the son of God. Christians believe the Bible based on faith and what it says to be true. Muslims believe the Qur'an based on faith and what it says to be true. Both of them cannot be true (although both can be false). How do you reconcile that based on faith?

 

The thing about Islam is that it denies Jesus was crucified. History clearly shows Christ was crucified, which axes out Islam.

[endlessabyss]

Atheists don't "choose not to believe". The evidence is poor, therefore we don't believe. Atheistic attitude to Islam, Hindi, whatever is exactly your attitude, we just go one step further and call bull**** on all of them, rather than all except one. So now you understand why an atheist can't believe, it's about using critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence, rather than basing them on what we want to be true.

 

 

Even if all religions were wrong it would not lead to the inference that God doesn't exist lol.

 

 

If you reference to my quote from Lewontin in my previous post, you would see atheism isn't about critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence.

 

 

It's a belief system in itself, that rules out God all together, regardless where the evidence leads.

 

 

I'll wait for your snobby reply back about how I am wrong, and how your belief system holds a monopoly on reason and evidence.

[pie2]

These kinds of discussions always fascinate me. I do not understand exactly why a Muslim believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why a Hindu believes what he believes. I do not understand exactly why someone would believe in reincarnation. I do not understand exactly why an atheist chooses not to believe.

 

However, I do not feel the need to bash them, make fun of them, scoff at them, prove to the world they are stupid, grill them, or otherwise show my arse to them. Their different belief or lack of belief does not really...affect me.

 

So it's always fascinating to see the character revealed in those who MUST belittle everyone who has faith. I thought we were all about tolerance. No, wait, I thought it was people like ME who were supposed to be the intolerant ones, while everyone else is open-minded and tolerant.

 

Funny that.

 

Well, it definitely seems to come with the territory in this forum.

 

I think many times there's a secret desire on the troll's part to discuss God. They obviously feel a pull to talk about Him, no matter how they go about it. Which can be a good thing because sometimes the biggest naysayers become the biggest proponents of God.

 

I guess any thread can be an opportunity to share the gospel. Actually, I'm surprised this thread has gone on this long. Usually some sort of alert is made...

 

Now, if only I knew which troll Michael35 was!

[pureinheart]

The Bible was written by mortal men who were filled with (ie, inspired by) the Holy Spirit, who is God.

 

People are technically correct when they say the Bible was not written by God. However, it is the TRUE writings of people who KNEW God and saw him work. The Bible is not the primary agent of salvation--therefore it's not "the Word of God". The Word of God is only Jesus Christ. If the Bible were the Word of God, then any and all experts who study it would know who Christ is and would accept Him. Clearly this wasn't the case with the Scribes in Jesus' day who, in knowing Scripture better than anyone, couldn't recognize who Christ was. Christ said to them, "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me..." (John 5).

 

The Holy Spirit (God) is living. The Bible, while true, is not living. But anyone who disregards the Scriptures, even though they are not technically The Word of God, is rejecting TRUE testimony ABOUT The Word of God, which is dangerous.

 

Hopefully everybody sees my point. So in this regard I agree with the previous poster about needing to "adapt". I say, sure, as long as it's through the Holy Spirit and consistent with the written testimony of Scripture.

 

This is an awesome explanation M30- thank you:)

[Weezy1973]

Yes I agree with your last paragraph. Your first one is proven to be true through testing. Darwinism is not and can not be. It is simply theory, there is no hard evidence

 

Nothing can be proven true, even through testing. All that testing can do is give us facts.

 

Evolution is a fact, in that it is repeatably observable in our natural world and in laboratory setting. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an explanation of all the facts that have been collected in the field of biology, and specifically answers the question of how all the species on our planet came to be.

 

The theory of evolution is the best explanation of those facts and therefore is accepted by the vast majority of experts in fields that deal with biology.

 

Just because the theory of evolution cannot be proven true, does not mean it isn't true. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining the facts we have pertaining to the origin of species.

[Mangina]

Nothing can be proven true, even through testing. All that testing can do is give us facts.

 

Evolution is a fact, in that it is repeatably observable in our natural world and in laboratory setting. The theory of evolution is not a fact. It is an explanation of all the facts that have been collected in the field of biology, and specifically answers the question of how all the species on our planet came to be.

 

The theory of evolution is the best explanation of those facts and therefore is accepted by the vast majority of experts in fields that deal with biology.

 

Just because the theory of evolution cannot be proven true, does not mean it isn't true. There is no competing theory that even comes close to explaining the facts we have pertaining to the origin of species.

 

It doesn't mean it is true either. In the end you have no proof either.

[Weezy1973]

When it comes to origins, science is pure speculation.

 

It is not speculation in that it uses facts as evidence which either supports or does not support a particular theory. All of the facts collected in the field of biology pertaining to the origin of species are explained very elegantly by the theory of evolution. No other theory comes close to the point that it has become the underlying paradigm in all of the biological sciences.

 

Just because humans have found cures to certain ailments, and can make humans live longer in no way, or form, disproves God.

 

Nothing can disprove God. Or the Easter Bunny. Or leprechauns. Or the tooth fairy. You can't prove a negative. That being said, there's no evidence to suggest that the tooth fairy, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny or any gods exist, so it's safe to assume they don't. But one can never be absolutely sure.

 

We can study the human body, and the universe, but we can't show how it originated. That is a mystery, and the most logical explanation is that it was created, due to the overwhelming complexity of these entities.

 

First, that is "God of the gaps." Second, if complexity requires a creator, that would mean that the creator is even more complex than the creation. Which means it would require a creator. To infinite. Therefore illogical.

 

Welp, for me, Christianity has evidence. I know Jesus existed, and I know He was crucified, so I put my faith it his claims, because after looking at the evidence it is the only viable option to go with.

 

Jesus existing and being crucified does not actually require any faith. In those times many people were crucified, especially people that were speaking out against the Roman empire. Like Jesus. And many others.

 

It's the whole God thing that requires faith. And the walking on water thing. And the rising from the dead thing. And the dude living in a whale thing. Etc. Etc.

[Weezy1973]

If you reference to my quote from Lewontin in my previous post, you would see atheism isn't about critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence.

 

 

It's a belief system in itself, that rules out God all together, regardless where the evidence leads.

 

Atheism actually isn't a belief system; it's the lack of belief. Not believing in any gods is the same as not believing in anything else. Not believing in astrology. Or not believing in the tooth fairy. Or not believing in whatever it is that Scientologists believe in.

 

If you were to describe a belief system that some people who happen to be atheists subscribe to, it might be scepticism or secular humanism. But, quite frankly, most atheists I know are pretty independent thinkers, and would prefer not to belong to any particular group that might tend towards group think.

[M30USA]

Science is incapable of explaining how something came from nothing. What it CAN explain are the processes that began to take place AFTER matter already came into existence. The problem with most evolutionists is that they forget this distinction. But when you consider this distinction, you begin to realize that it doesn't matter if we can prove evolution or not. We will never know, scientifically, what happened to bring something from nothing BEFORE evolution started (hyopthetically). The only way around THIS is to say "there always was something and there never was nothing". That's a legitimate argument which would be for another thread.

[endlessabyss]

It is not speculation in that it uses facts as evidence which either supports or does not support a particular theory. All of the facts collected in the field of biology pertaining to the origin of species are explained very elegantly by the theory of evolution. No other theory comes close to the point that it has become the underlying paradigm in all of the biological sciences.

 

 

 

Nothing can disprove God. Or the Easter Bunny. Or leprechauns. Or the tooth fairy. You can't prove a negative. That being said, there's no evidence to suggest that the tooth fairy, leprechauns, the Easter Bunny or any gods exist, so it's safe to assume they don't. But one can never be absolutely sure.

 

 

 

First, that is "God of the gaps." Second, if complexity requires a creator, that would mean that the creator is even more complex than the creation. Which means it would require a creator. To infinite. Therefore illogical.

 

 

 

Jesus existing and being crucified does not actually require any faith. In those times many people were crucified, especially people that were speaking out against the Roman empire. Like Jesus. And many others.

 

It's the whole God thing that requires faith. And the walking on water thing. And the rising from the dead thing. And the dude living in a whale thing. Etc. Etc.

 

Broken record....

[endlessabyss]

Atheism actually isn't a belief system; it's the lack of belief. Not believing in any gods is the same as not believing in anything else. Not believing in astrology. Or not believing in the tooth fairy. Or not believing in whatever it is that Scientologists believe in.

 

If you were to describe a belief system that some people who happen to be atheists subscribe to, it might be scepticism or secular humanism. But, quite frankly, most atheists I know are pretty independent thinkers, and would prefer not to belong to any particular group that might tend towards group think.

 

Atheism is a firm, fixed belief that God does not exist.

 

When I heard Bill Craig define it this way it made so much sense.

[Clair93]

Even if all religions were wrong it would not lead to the inference that God doesn't exist lol.

 

 

If you reference to my quote from Lewontin in my previous post, you would see atheism isn't about critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence.

 

 

It's a belief system in itself, that rules out God all together, regardless where the evidence leads.

 

 

I'll wait for your snobby reply back about how I am wrong, and how your belief system holds a monopoly on reason and evidence.

 

The way you define atheism is not what I and most atheists accept, so you're just falling for straw man fallacies.

 

 

Atheism is a firm, fixed belief that God does not exist.

 

When I heard Bill Craig define it this way it made so much sense.

 

Most Atheists don't accept your definition as they have a lack of belief rather than a firm belief in absence, and it's only a descriptive word so it doesn't even matter. If you want to go down the definitions road, then I'm an Agnostic, others who posted are Agnostic, Richard Dawkins is an agnostic, Sam Harris is an agnostic, etc. Happy now?

 

When theists claim that atheists also have a belief, or have a faith, rather than trying to argue for the truth of their own beliefs, they're essentially saying that atheists listen up, your beliefs are as stupid as ours. That's telling and that's the best theistic apologetics can do really.

[endlessabyss]

The way you define atheism is not what I and most atheists accept, so you're just falling for straw man fallacies.

 

 

 

 

Most Atheists don't accept your definition as they have a lack of belief rather than a firm belief in absence, and it's only a descriptive word so it doesn't even matter. If you want to go down the definitions road, then I'm an Agnostic, others who posted are Agnostic, Richard Dawkins is an agnostic, Sam Harris is an agnostic, etc. Happy now?

 

When theists claim that atheists also have a belief, or have a faith, rather than trying to argue for the truth of their own beliefs, they're essentially saying that atheists listen up, your beliefs are as stupid as ours. That's telling and that's the best theistic apologetics can do really.

 

 

Never looked at it like that. I just looked at the atheist position as stupid on its own merits.

 

 

That was after exploring all the options when I had doubts four years ago.

[umirano]

Science is incapable of explaining how something came from nothing.

"Science" doesn't explain anything. Science is a tool used to derive useful theories. A lot of people don't understand useful and theory in this context. Even though some lovely (religious) co-poster probably will report me again I'll explain what they mean.

 

useful: allowing for new testable and confirmable insight

theory: a set of (proven) claims and concepts that causally, logically and coherently explain a certain observation or phenomenon. "Theory" has very little to do with the word "theoreticall(y)" as we use it in every day language.

 

And science is really the only tool that can help us to obtain understanding of the question that you raise (i.e. something from nothing). Of course you can always say "I don't need no science! I know because I know! Or because it says so in that old book!" But that's neither useful nor a theory and increases our understanding of the universe by exactly zero.

 

What it CAN explain are the processes that began to take place AFTER matter already came into existence.

Sure. And we can also observe that all matter is moving away from a certain point in space. In a scientific and educated manner you can think about what that means, and you can consider what it means for the events and "processes" taking place just before all matter started to move away from that point. By the way this observation (that all visible matter is moving away) is pretty easily tested by anyone with enough time and a telescope.

 

The problem with most evolutionists is that they forget this distinction.

Evolutionists? This distinction is not really one, for one, and it doesn't have much to do with evolution. Actually nothing.

 

But when you consider this distinction, you begin to realize that it doesn't matter if we can prove evolution or not.

Of course it matters whether evolution can be proven (and it actually can and is in thousands of ways, see Frequently Asked Questions About Creationism and Evolution"). If it couldn't any reasonable person should immediately discard it.

 

We will never know, scientifically, what happened to bring something from nothing

How do you know that? How much do you know about the "nothing" that you know it can't bring something? You have certainty, explain where it comes from, please.

 

BEFORE evolution started (hyopthetically).

Evolution has nothing to do with the problem of something from nothing. Evolution is just the observation that life forms change and adapt. It has to do with life, in a non-empty universe, that is to say in a universe that's already full of matter. It doesn't need to answer the question how something can come from noting, that's not what evolution tries to explain.

 

It is bad taste, but none the less frequently done, to try to argue the validity of the theory of evolution by demanding it explains the origin of the universe.

 

origin of species =/= origin of the universe

[umirano]

It doesn't mean it is true either. In the end you have no proof either.

 

But it's way more useful than the theory of christianity. Christianity doesn't explain why certain species go extinct. Christianity doesn't explain how past, current and future climate changes, geological events or changes in vegetation affect species and populations of all sorts of lifeforms. Evolution does reliably so. Come up with something more accurate and insightful than evolution and biologists around the world will be thrilled and celebrate you.

[autumnnight]

Atheists don't "choose not to believe". The evidence is poor, therefore we don't believe. Atheistic attitude to Islam, Hindi, whatever is exactly your attitude, we just go one step further and call bull**** on all of them, rather than all except one. So now you understand why an atheist can't believe, it's about using critical thinking and basing beliefs on evidence, rather than basing them on what we want to be true.

 

That is all you took from my post. You just proved my point. Why the need to call bull****? Why the need to pick apart someone else's belief, a belief that is probably very important to them?

 

I can't think of any redeeming reasons, honestly.

[endlessabyss]

But it's way more useful than the theory of christianity. Christianity doesn't explain why certain species go extinct. Christianity doesn't explain how past, current and future climate changes, geological events or changes in vegetation affect species and populations of all sorts of lifeforms. Evolution does reliably so. Come up with something more accurate and insightful than evolution and biologists around the world will be thrilled and celebrate you.

 

Christianity's purpose isn't to address questions about species adapting, troll.

[Mangina]

That is all you took from my post. You just proved my point. Why the need to call bull****? Why the need to pick apart someone else's belief, a belief that is probably very important to them?

 

I can't think of any redeeming reasons, honestly.

 

They get a thrill out of doing it. It a type of emotional sadism

[Mangina]

But it's way more useful than the theory of christianity. Christianity doesn't explain why certain species go extinct. Christianity doesn't explain how past, current and future climate changes, geological events or changes in vegetation affect species and populations of all sorts of lifeforms. Evolution does reliably so. Come up with something more accurate and insightful than evolution and biologists around the world will be thrilled and celebrate you.

 

Why are you so worried about it so even if you could prove god doesn't exist which you cant. And then what?

[writergal]

How can science undermine the word of god, when god is just a mental concept created by humans to explain the unknown? Everything ever written about god, was written by humans. Science existed before humans did. Shouldn't you wonder this instead, "the current approach to science is undermined by those in religious authority."

 

Religion has repeatedly attempted to trump science with its bogus spirituality. The fact is, science is all about facts whereas religion / theology / philosophy is based on mythology and assumptions. The only facts tied to religion are archeological which is a form of science; when archeologists discover ancient religious temples and cities referenced in religious writings.

[autumnnight]

How can science undermine the word of god, when god is just a mental concept created by humans to explain the unknown? Everything ever written about god, was written by humans. Science existed before humans did. Shouldn't you wonder this instead, "the current approach to science is undermined by those in religious authority."

 

Religion has repeatedly attempted to trump science with its bogus spirituality. The fact is, science is all about facts whereas religion / theology / philosophy is based on mythology and assumptions. The only facts tied to religion are archeological which is a form of science; when archeologists discover ancient religious temples and cities referenced in religious writings.

 

You express your opinion very well.

[Bishop556]

Considering that I am a physicist and agnostic, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. One question I have for athiests and theists is: How can you determine that there is no God? Perhaps within our genetic programming, we just don't have the "stuff" to truly understand what God is, if there is such a thing. I just do not believe that human kind can determine absolute truth. It is a very silly and narcissistic assumption to think we can. We may understand the "how", the science behind the workings of the universe, but can anyone explain the "why"? That's where the fundamental question lies. In that, we can determine if there is a God or not, but can humans determine this? I do not think so.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Bishop556