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

[Trimmer]

Then don't say evidence will "win the day". That implies finality and certainty.

Disagree. We're arguing semantics now, but I understood what Weezy meant even before it had to be explained.

 

How are we going to decide how to proceed today? We'll use the best evidence available. The evidence "wins the day." Tomorrow, if new evidence is available, we'll proceed with that.

[Robert Z]

Howare we going to decide how to proceed today? We'll use the best evidenceavailable. The evidence "wins the day." Tomorrow, if new evidence isavailable, we'll proceed with that.

 

 

Additionally,new evidence often modifies existing theories not by completely undermining them, but by adding complexity. And I know you know this but generally...

 

Einstein vs Newton is a great example. Newton's laws of motion are valid for almost all conditions. Where speeds near the speed of light, or where extremely strong gravity fields exist, Newton fails. But we didn't know that until Einstein came along with Relativity. So was Newton wrong? Not really.

 

For example, if we consider the energy of a mass in motion,

Newton says E = 1/2 MV^2

Einstein says it is E= M[gamma]C^2

where M is mass

V is the velocity

E is the energy of the object

C is the speed of light

and gamma = 1/square root [1-(V/C)^2]

 

At a glance the equations look nothing alike. But if we assume that the velocity V is much much less than C [the speed of light], which is the world that Newton observed, then Einstein's equations magically reduce to Newton's equations.

 

The point being that new evidence often adds to what we know. It doesn't undo it.Newton was correct for all that could be observed and tested in his world.Later we realized that Newton's equations are just a special case of the more general equations from Relativity.

 

Note also that if V = 0, then Einstein's energy is the familiar E = MC^2, the energy of the mass itself when at rest.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Robert Z

[Clair93]

Additionally,new evidence often modifies existing theories not by completely undermining them, but by adding complexity. And I know you know this but generally...

 

Einstein vs Newton is a great example. Newton's laws of motion are valid for almost all conditions. Where speeds near the speed of light, or where extremely strong gravity fields exist, Newton fails. But we didn't know that until Einstein came along with Relativity. So was Newton wrong? Not really.

 

For example, if we consider the energy of a mass in motion,

Newton says E = 1/2 MV^2

Einstein says it is E= M[gamma]C^2

where M is mass

V is the velocity

E is the energy of the object

C is the speed of light

and gamma = 1/square root [1-(V/C)^2]

 

At a glance the equations look nothing alike. But if we assume that the velocity V is much much less than C [the speed of light], which is the world that Newton observed, then Einstein's equations magically reduce to Newton's equations.

 

The point being that new evidence often adds to what we know. It doesn't undo it.Newton was correct for all that could be observed and tested in his world.Later we realized that Newton's equations are just a special case of the more general equations from Relativity.

 

Note also that if V = 0, then Einstein's energy is the familiar E = MC^2, the energy of the mass itself when at rest.

 

In other words, findings are true in the context of their observations. If we expand our observations, we will find that the old theories may not extend, but they still work in the context of their initial observations. The old theories generally will become special cases for the broader theories that explain a wider range of observations.

[Levite]

Disagree. We're arguing semantics now, but I understood what Weezy meant even before it had to be explained.

 

How are we going to decide how to proceed today? We'll use the best evidence available. The evidence "wins the day." Tomorrow, if new evidence is available, we'll proceed with that.

 

But many classic and modern philosophers teach us that our intentions, motives, and beliefs shape the evidence that we see. Evidence by itself has no meaning. It's just numbers and data. The second you assign meaning to something, you are leaving the world of strict science and entering into theory.

 

Granted, you can make the claim that we MUST assign meaning and theory to science. With that I agree with you. It's who we are as human brings to do so. Our very existence causes us to seek meaning.

 

Our difference lies in what we both consider the best evidence. My point to you is that you will see evidence that supports your belief, while I will see evidence that supports mine. (I'm saying this in reference to "big picture" subjects such as evolution verses creation, not small subjects like medicine which can be easily proven one way or the other.)

 

The bigger the system, the more variables, and therefore the less certain your evidence is (or the interpretation of the evidence). The smaller the system, the less variables, and therefore the more certain the evidence is. Most of us on here are talking about big systems such as how the world or life started. As a result, the evidence has low certainty. Furthermore, there becomes more room for religion and faith. This doesn't mean religion and faith contradicts evidence. No, quite the opposite. If repeated high level evidence in multiple areas shows something to be false, I will revise my religious beliefs.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Levite

[Clair93]

Our difference lies in what we both consider the best evidence. My point to you is that you will see evidence that supports your belief, while I will see evidence that supports mine. (I'm saying this in reference to "big picture" subjects such as evolution verses creation, not small subjects like medicine which can be easily proven one way or the other.)

 

I don't know if you accept evolution (I can only hope), if your belief is that God may have guided it (as it is the belief of a lot of Christian academics and theologians, it's unfalsifiable since you can dismiss whatever evidence is presented as "part of God's plan". The evolution that scientists believe in is falsifiable. Any fossil out of its predicted date, or any gene outside of it's place, and boom, evolution is gone.

 

 

The bigger the system, the more variables, and therefore the less certain your evidence is (or the interpretation of the evidence). The smaller the system, the less variables, and therefore the more certain the evidence is. Most of us on here are talking about big systems such as how the world or life started. As a result, the evidence has low certainty. Furthermore, there becomes more room for religion and faith. This doesn't mean religion and faith contradicts evidence. No, quite the opposite. If repeated high level evidence in multiple areas shows something to be false, I will revise my religious beliefs.

 

If you were a complete Agnostic then your comments would had some validity, but that person would suspend any belief until evidence is presented. You claim you KNOW the answer, and yet expect others to prove your UNFALSIFIABLE claim wrong, only for you to "revise" your religious beliefs. I'm shocked that you don't see the absurdity of this.

[Robert Z]

and yet expect others to prove your UNFALSIFIABLE claim wrong, only for you to "revise" your religious beliefs. I'm shocked that you don't see the absurdity of this.

 

Indeed, we are supposed to accept creation stories on faith, and ignore the hard, repeatable, peer reviewed, many times confirmed and there for all to see, scientific evidence for evolution.

 

A funny thing about scientific evidence. What scientists call evidence, most people would consider to be fact. And that is the real absurdity in all of this. If the religious community had a shred of evidence for God that could stand up to scientific scrutiny, the claim would be that it is proof of God beyond any doubt. Given the same level of confidence for evolution, and we are supposed to ignore it as flawed.

[Levite]

I don't know if you accept evolution (I can only hope), if your belief is that God may have guided it (as it is the belief of a lot of Christian academics and theologians, it's unfalsifiable since you can dismiss whatever evidence is presented as "part of God's plan". The evolution that scientists believe in is falsifiable. Any fossil out of its predicted date, or any gene outside of it's place, and boom, evolution is gone.

 

 

 

 

If you were a complete Agnostic then your comments would had some validity, but that person would suspend any belief until evidence is presented. You claim you KNOW the answer, and yet expect others to prove your UNFALSIFIABLE claim wrong, only for you to "revise" your religious beliefs. I'm shocked that you don't see the absurdity of this.

 

I've been the first to say on this forum that metaphysics cannot be proven in a strict scientific sense nor can subjects like creationism or evolution.

 

I do not contradict myself for the simple reason that I know the science route is not the only route of proof. Secondly, my faith necessitates that I believe my belief is true--if that makes sense. How can I, for example, have a belief that christ is the only way to salvation (which is what Bible clearly says) and yet not believe he is the only way and that others can be right for saying he's not the only way. To do so would be to either not REALLY believe, or to fall down the slippery slope of solipsism (the precursor to postmodernism).

 

Scripture states that the Holy Spirit is its OWN witness to the truth, since it is God himself. I accept the fact that this doesn't fit into your mold of argument, and it doesn't advance my own, but it's worth considering.

[endlessabyss]

I don't know what the big deal about accepting evolution is; it's like some type of peer pressure, that if you don't accept, than you are an ignoramus of sorts.

 

 

In the past I felt this pressure, when I had no backbone. Looking at the evidence, the aggregate of the theory really isn't that strong. Everyone concedes to the type of evolution that we can test and observe; it's the philosophical portion people have a problem with.

 

 

I've read material from brilliant minds, such as Michael Denton, Stephen Meyer, and John Lennox, all critical of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and proponents of design. Another favorite of mine is Stephen Blume.

 

 

Blume isn't a big name, but he is a ex-evolutionist, and has a masters in the biological sciences; he's also non-religious as well. I read a book he published, and it had a profound impact on the way I looked at the theory.

 

 

He also has a blog that records a lot of his ideas: Evolution: An Objective Look | An ex-evolutionaut tells why he has changed his mind.. Blume is a great thinker, and I have a tremendous amount of respect for him.

 

 

On the flip side of the coin, I have also read books authored by Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and the rest of the evolution camp. Coyne's book was, by far, my favorite on the subject of evolution, but all in all, design is the more compelling explanation of the two, imho.

 

 

When people criticize me over this discussion, because I don't accept said theory, I blow it off now, because I have read from each side, and made a decision based off of what I digested over the years.

[Weezy1973]

But many classic and modern philosophers teach us that our intentions, motives, and beliefs shape the evidence that we see...

 

...Our difference lies in what we both consider the best evidence. My point to you is that you will see evidence that supports your belief, while I will see evidence that supports mine.

 

Absolutely true! This phenomenon is called confirmation bias and is one of the reasons people hold onto their beliefs even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. Science has countered this phenomenon far better than any other method of knowledge acquisition. It's not perfect of course.

 

Evidence by itself has no meaning. It's just numbers and data. The second you assign meaning to something, you are leaving the world of strict science and entering into theory.

 

Exactly right again. For example Darwin made two observations (facts/evidence):

 

1. There is variability in populations of species.

2. Offspring resemble their parents

3. Species are well adapted to their environment.

 

And then logically deduced:

 

1. There must be some hereditary unit that passes from parents to children (he didn't know about genetics at the time).

2. Those hereditary traits that confer a reproductive advantage will spread through a population faster than those that don't. (a.k.a. survival of the fittest).

 

And that is natural selection in a nutshell. Evidence and then theory.

 

 

Most of us on here are talking about big systems such as how the world or life started.

 

Certainly both interesting topics, but to be clear, evolution does not have anything to do with how life started. How life started or how the universe came into existence are both super interesting though, but alas, there is not enough evidence (or not enough observable data) to make a theory at this time.

 

Now, how the diversity of species came to be on our planet...evolutionary theory explains that extremely well, and with gobs of evidence to boot!

 

 

As a result, the evidence has low certainty. Furthermore, there becomes more room for religion and faith. This doesn't mean religion and faith contradicts evidence. No, quite the opposite. If repeated high level evidence in multiple areas shows something to be false, I will revise my religious beliefs.

 

Evidence can't show anything to be false. For example, try to find me evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

 

If there are low, or no, amounts of evidence on a topic, the rational thing to do is admit lack of knowledge. "I don't know" is a great answer when there is no evidence. Faith gets used because people are really afraid of the unknown.

[Levite]

Thank you for the info, Weezy.

[Weezy1973]

Secondly, my faith necessitates that I believe my belief is true--if that makes sense.

 

It sounds to me like "My belief is true because I believe it to be true." If I'm wrong, please explain...

 

...the Holy Spirit is its OWN witness to the truth, since it is God himself. I accept the fact that this doesn't fit into your mold of argument, and it doesn't advance my own, but it's worth considering.

 

I'm trying to consider - but it really doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Please explain...

[chumble]

Arguing with religious people always comes down to a false circular logic in which they basically say "I'm right because I'm right." The starting point is that their book is unquestionable, even though it contradicts itself in 100 ways and relies on bronze-age cosmology.

 

From the original post:

 

The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate.

 

When argument and evidence have no legitimacy, then there is no use even talking. "Ministerial reason" is just code for authoritarianism. You are guilty because the Soviet Tribunal says so, no time for evidence, have a nice day. Next!!

[autumnnight]

Arguing with religious people always comes down to a false circular logic in which they basically say "I'm right because I'm right." The starting point is that their book is unquestionable, even though it contradicts itself in 100 ways and relies on bronze-age cosmology.

 

From the original post:

 

 

 

When argument and evidence have no legitimacy, then there is no use even talking. "Ministerial reason" is just code for authoritarianism. You are guilty because the Soviet Tribunal says so, no time for evidence, have a nice day. Next!!

 

The OP already said he was a troll. Obviously, like comedians who exaggerate the mannerisms when they do impressions, he was going to play up what he considers to be ridiculous.

 

I don't think it's so much that "since it doesn't make sense to me it can't be true" as it is trying to explain the color red to a person born blind or trying to fully explain childbirth to someone who has never had a baby.

 

I cannot explain my faith in God in an ironclad, airtight, completely logical and rational sense that would withstand any and all skepticism. All I know is what has happened in my own life, what I believe, and how it has changed me. If I get to the end of my life and I was wrong, and there is nothing after death, I really have no regrets about having faith. It has not prohibited me from succeeding, from attaining multiple degrees, from continuing to learn. It has greatly enhanced my life, joy, and contentment, not to mention being a source of strength when things are tough.

 

I'm not seeing where a person with any empathy and compassion would be hell bent on taking that away from people just to prove a point or be "right."

[Weezy1973]

I cannot explain my faith in God in an ironclad, airtight, completely logical and rational sense that would withstand any and all skepticism. All I know is what has happened in my own life, what I believe, and how it has changed me. If I get to the end of my life and I was wrong, and there is nothing after death, I really have no regrets about having faith. It has not prohibited me from succeeding, from attaining multiple degrees, from continuing to learn. It has greatly enhanced my life, joy, and contentment, not to mention being a source of strength when things are tough.

 

I'm not seeing where a person with any empathy and compassion would be hell bent on taking that away from people just to prove a point or be "right."

 

This is very well put. I think many people, especially on the atheist side, forget how deeply personal a person's faith can be. When I was younger I was all about proving my point and showing people I was right, but now that I'm older I've learned to be more sensitive.

 

The fact is, for me, I have no personal stake in atheism, even though I'm an atheist. People can attack atheism all they want and I won't feel the least bit attacked or hurt. I forget sometimes, that a lot of religious people aren't the same. They are personally invested in their religion so when you debate them on it, it's like you're attacking them personally.

 

And to be honest, on most of it, I could care less. No harm, no foul. I do draw the line on some things. For example, teaching creationism in science classes to me is pretty offensive. And mostly because creationism is not science. Evolutionary theory is science.

 

I'm actually not entirely sure why there are groups of people that want to teach creationism in science classrooms to be honest. But I also don't understand why some people would kill abortion doctors or beat homosexual people to death.

Edited January 23, 2015 by Weezy1973

[chumble]

The OP already said he was a troll.

 

Fair enough. I didn’t really read much of the thread, tl;dr.

 

 

I'm not seeing where a person with any empathy and compassion would be hell bent on taking that away from people just to prove a point or be "right."

 

I’m not for taking away your faith. I am for defending science on its own turf. When I “argue with religious people,” it is always because they are attacking some institution or activity.

 

I do draw the line on some things. For example, teaching creationism in science classes to me is pretty offensive. And mostly because creationism is not science. Evolutionary theory is science.

 

case in point.

[autumnnight]

I happen to agree that teaching creationism in a science class is inappropriate. For one thing, I do not think one can quantify faith. I mean, it kinda ceases to actually be faith at that point. Secondly, there are all sorts of religion-related things that people believe that seem to be in contrast to science. Were do we draw the line? If we are going to teach creation, do we also include reincarnation, or that whole coming out of the womb of Mother Earth thing? This is also why I am not for "prayer in school." Students already have the freedom to pray should they choose, and I am not for teachers having to spend time teaching every religion's version of prayer. Just teach English, History, Science, Economics, etc.

 

Of course, when evolution is taught, it had better be taught as a theory - because that is what it is.

[chumble]

Of course, when evolution is taught, it had better be taught as a theory - because that is what it is.

 

So is gravity, or the combustion of oxygen. But I agree. It is a scientific theory, so let it be explained as such!

[Weezy1973]

Of course, when evolution is taught, it had better be taught as a theory - because that is what it is.

 

Of course - it is a scientific theory:

 

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[/url]As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory force.

 

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge. This is significantly different from the common usage of the word "theory", which implies that something is a conjecture, hypothesis, or guess (i.e., unsubstantiated and speculative).[6]

[SincereOnlineGuy]

The starting point is that their book is unquestionable, even though it contradicts itself in 100 ways and relies on bronze-age cosmology.

 

 

Their so-called 'book' is centered on a point in time fully one hundred YEARS before paper was invented.

 

It was fully ONE-THOUSAND YEARS later that paper became widely used in the western world.

 

And today, where technology is far more modern and speedy, you still can't find a teacher who can whisper a brief phrase to a teenager in the front row of a classroom, and have that same, unaltered phrase reach the back of the row fully intact.

 

 

If these people want to play make-believe, what say they sit down with a bunch of dolls, and some china, and have a liquid-free tea party. That would make for a much more modern tradition.

[pie2]

If these people want to play make-believe, what say they sit down with a bunch of dolls, and some china, and have a liquid-free tea party. That would make for a much more modern tradition.

 

Oh, no need to bother with the dolls and china...us believers are just fine with imagination alone. duh! ()

 

SOG, are you secretly amazed when religious people can figure stuff out like walking, getting dressed, even turning on computers?

[autumnnight]

Again, why the need to be a kindergarten school yard bully just because you don't believe in God? You weaken your argument when you resort to personal attacks.

[Quiet Storm]

I don't believe in God. I was raised Catholic but just don't believe it. I have many similar values, but they are based on my own personal integrity. I want to be an honest person and a good person, and try to make sure all my actions reflect that. I've raised my kids to do the same.

 

There are many times I wished I could believe in it. It would be nice to always have a friend, to know someone who loves you is watching over you and to know you will get to see your loved ones after you die. I do think religion does provide many benefits for believers.

 

When I had my oldest I struggled with deciding whether the benefits of religion would improve my kids life. And I decided that even though I wanted my kids to have that "God always loves me" kind of security, I just could not tell them what I believe deep down in my heart to be a lie. I don't disrespect religion and raise my kids to show respect to all people.

 

I don't expect others to not believe in God, but I don't want their beliefs pushed on my family. I also think religion should be kept out of public schools, as I live in a very diverse community and it would only create confusion. I see nothing wrong with telling kids "Many people believe in higher powers" and educating them on the various religions and beliefs, but would be against teaching religion as fact.

[autumnnight]

I live in what most people would consider religion central, and I do not know of a single school that teaches religion as fact, requires children to pray, etc. I would be interested to know where all these schools are that are doing this. In the school systems in my area, creationism isn't anywhere in the curriculum.

[TaxAHCruel]

our beliefs and religion is not scientifically accurate or even they go so far to call us anti-science, merely for not accepting certain theories that undermine our religious beliefs

 

In many ways I agree with them too. For all means have religious beliefs if you need them - but surely ensuring your beliefs track with reality and modifying and evolving them in the light of reality - is the right thing to do? Rejecting Scientific Theory for no reason other than it undermines the current state of your religious beliefs - is "anti science" - even if the phrase itself is not the best one.

 

or the fact that we may want equal representation of competing theories in schools for our children.[/QUOTe]

 

That sounds nice on paper - but in reality what all too many people mean by "equal time" and "equal representation" is actually "UNequal validation". That is to say they want their ideas - unsubstantiated and baseless - to be lent equal credibility - for no other reason than those ideas exist - with actual established and validated and substantiated ones.

 

And in THAT light I am afraid the battle against this in our schools is well fought and needs to be maintained.

[BearMox]

Atheism actually isn't a belief system; it's the lack of belief.

 

Belief is a primal construct of existence and it influences action. I'm using an extended definition of the word, obviously. It is impossible to assert without it.

 

<snip>Spirituality is a creation of the right side of the human brain. Science figured that one out<snip>

 

As mentioned earlier, science didn't do anything. You did. I suspect there is more to you coming to this belief than just an article you read on the internet.

 

<snip> we just don't have the "stuff" to truly understand what God is, if there is such a thing.<snip>

 

This is a difficult problem for a logical approach. We enter into a belief based on a set of data. The dataset is irrelevant. Thus, everything is a "leap of faith". Note, this is a leading question primed by your belief that "God" is beyond the grasp of logic. If He exists then, it is only through belief by which He can become part of a person's consciousness.

 

<snip>The ones claiming there is one, and that his existence is relevant to humanity should back up their claim with tangible evidence. They haven't so far and I don't see how they ever will.<snip>

 

The problem of evidence is it is tied up in the 5 senses (mentioned earlier in this thread). What happens to "evidence" if I reduce your experience to that of just smelling? (hint: you'll end up living in a tent near McDonalds)

 

You might conclude that the capacity for belief comes from a general ability to hear (perceive, consume, read, listen to, etc).

 

<snip>The people who believe their religion is the absolute truth and their god really exists are the ones that are dangerous.

 

I can heartily agree with you on the tragedy of deception. What we need then, is somebody that has experience, not dogma mixed with self-interest.

 

What about those who are confidently sure about "the golden rule"? Will they fly airplanes into buildings? Nope.

Haha, this we can agree on.

 

Beautiful. What makes good, good if we're nothing more than animals?