ForumGarden

Ahso!;1271061 wrote: If you can't then the existence of God is rejected by science. If it turns out that enough evidence comes to light supporting the existence of a God, then science no longer rejects the premise, but until that time, science rejects the idea of the existence of God. Thats science, thats how it works.


Dude that's absurd

"Science" is a divine truth, it's not an invention

Science is truth, therefore what has not been discovered cannot be ruled out by virtue of it's own definition

Anything else is placing "discovery" as being "unachievable" and that premise has been proved to be blatantly wrong

yaaarrrgg;1270917 wrote: I would like for a creationist (who rejects evolution) to explain how a biological process works. For example: the immune system.




I have this all the time - and it continues to amaze me. I work in Research, and so am surrounded by Scientists, Doctors, Neurologists, Psychologists etc and due to the global nature of the organisation, quite a high percentage of them are religious. (varying religions) However it always astounds me to find that some of the more senior scientists (PhD educated) still believe that creationism is viable, and doesn't contradict everything they've studied!!! Gah!!

Given the opportunity, they are able to give an account of how this is possible, however it's pretty easy to tear their argument apart. I would mention however, that this is not something that I do. It's my experience that many people NEED their faith for one reason or another and hold onto it with all their might. Watching someone crumble after they lose their faith is NOT a pretty sight at all. (I watched this as a child and it's very frightening)

Elvira;1271201 wrote: I have this all the time - and it continues to amaze me. I work in Research, and so am surrounded by Scientists, Doctors, Neurologists, Psychologists etc and due to the global nature of the organisation, quite a high percentage of them are religious. (varying religions) However it always astounds me to find that some of the more senior scientists (PhD educated) still believe that creationism is viable, and doesn't contradict everything they've studied!!! Gah!!

Given the opportunity, they are able to give an account of how this is possible, however it's pretty easy to tear their argument apart. I would mention however, that this is not something that I do. It's my experience that many people NEED their faith for one reason or another and hold onto it with all their might. Watching someone crumble after they lose their faith is NOT a pretty sight at all. (I watched this as a child and it's very frightening)


That's a good point. I can appreciate the metaphor... makes me think of a person in an ocean, that has to hold onto something, even a bit of rubbish, to stay afloat. When questioned why they are clinging to rubbish, they interpret that as someone trying to take away their flotation device and react, understandably, in a hostile manner.

Coming from a fundamentalist Christian background myself, I see that rubbish as ultimately harmful to the person. Since IMO the ocean they believe they are drowning in isn't as real as they think it is; mostly it's an extension of the same rubbish they are clinging to. At bottom, many sincerely believe they will be tortured eternally by some invisible psychopath if they don't do exactly what they are told, and think exactly what they are told to think. Many hold onto the creation myths out of fear... sheer terror.

How someone talks someone into a boat when there really isn't any water, is not an easy task. Especially when they think you are trying to get them killed.

K.Snyder;1271115 wrote: Dude that's absurd

"Science" is a divine truth, it's not an invention

Science is truth, therefore what has not been discovered cannot be ruled out by virtue of it's own definition

Anything else is placing "discovery" as being "unachievable" and that premise has been proved to be blatantly wrong


Science doesn't allow explanations that appeal to supernatural causation. Or the "god of the gaps" to explain things we don't know. Once you allow those things, everything is "explained" and progress stops. Scientists could just say "it rains because the rain god makes it rain" or explain away anything that they didn't really understand with "just-so" stories. As a discipline, science is necessarily secular, else it isn't really science.

yaaarrrgg;1271301 wrote: Science doesn't allow explanations that appeal to supernatural causation. Or the "god of the gaps" to explain things we don't know. Once you allow those things, everything is "explained" and progress stops. Scientists could just say "it rains because the rain god makes it rain" or explain away anything that they didn't really understand with "just-so" stories. As a discipline, science is necessarily secular, else it isn't really science.I didn't bother replying to his post because it's typical evidence and proof of exactly what I'm talking about.

The word 'truth' connotes a spiritual or philosophical quest while fact invokes the concept of 'evidence.'

At this juncture of the discussion I personally see no reason to entertain this again and again simply because one, two or three persons use their own dictionaries while amending them on the fly constantly cross contaminating disciplines. It actually illustrates my argument quite well, but so have other posts that have made similar arguments. Its becoming monotonous to me at least.

yaaarrrgg;1271290 wrote: That's a good point. I can appreciate the metaphor... makes me think of a person in an ocean, that has to hold onto something, even a bit of rubbish, to stay afloat. When questioned why they are clinging to rubbish, they interpret that as someone trying to take away their flotation device and react, understandably, in a hostile manner.

Coming from a fundamentalist Christian background myself, I see that rubbish as ultimately harmful to the person. Since IMO the ocean they believe they are drowning in isn't as real as they think it is; mostly it's an extension of the same rubbish they are clinging to. At bottom, many sincerely believe they will be tortured eternally by some invisible psychopath if they don't do exactly what they are told, and think exactly what they are told to think. Many hold onto the creation myths out of fear... sheer terror.

How someone talks someone into a boat when there really isn't any water, is not an easy task. Especially when they think you are trying to get them killed.


Sure, I agree that holding onto a 'crutch' that 'protects' you from the real, gory, snotty stuff doesn't really help in the long run - I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes non belivers get so caught up in trying to prove their own point, that they don't take the necessary care when trying to destroy someone's belief.

I personally class myself as 'non-religious' but rather than agressively tearing apart the fault lines that can be found in any religion, or set of beliefs, I'm more into gentle, open and enquiring discussion.

Having actually seen the state that someone is left in when they suddenly lose their faith I would urge caution, sensitivity and awareness, and if someone contributes to another's loss of faith they should damn well make sure they have the time to offer support and pick up the pieces.

Elvira;1271339 wrote: Sure, I agree that holding onto a 'crutch' that 'protects' you from the real, gory, snotty stuff doesn't really help in the long run - I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes non belivers get so caught up in trying to prove their own point, that they don't take the necessary care when trying to destroy someone's belief.

I personally class myself as 'non-religious' but rather than agressively tearing apart the fault lines that can be found in any religion, or set of beliefs, I'm more into gentle, open and enquiring discussion.

Having actually seen the state that someone is left in when they suddenly lose their faith I would urge caution, sensitivity and awareness, and if someone contributes to another's loss of faith they should damn well make sure they have the time to offer support and pick up the pieces.


Yes, I agree. I wasn't disagreeing, just commenting really.

Generally I don't critique religious beliefs either, with the intent to destroy them, unless I really see it causing some kind of real-world harm that warrants action. Pro-science religions I have no problem with. The other types of religions use human shields to carry out some pretty ugly things.

yaaarrrgg;1271301 wrote: Science doesn't allow explanations that appeal to supernatural causation. Or the "god of the gaps" to explain things we don't know. Once you allow those things, everything is "explained" and progress stops. Scientists could just say "it rains because the rain god makes it rain" or explain away anything that they didn't really understand with "just-so" stories. As a discipline, science is necessarily secular, else it isn't really science.


Ahso!;1271306 wrote: I didn't bother replying to his post because it's typical evidence and proof of exactly what I'm talking about.

The word 'truth' connotes a spiritual or philosophical quest while fact invokes the concept of 'evidence.'

At this juncture of the discussion I personally see no reason to entertain this again and again simply because one, two or three persons use their own dictionaries while amending them on the fly constantly cross contaminating disciplines. It actually illustrates my argument quite well, but so have other posts that have made similar arguments. Its becoming monotonous to me at least.


Neither of you haven't allowed for science to "allow explanations that appeal to supernatural causation" because you're basing your premises on the idea science and God is secular

You haven't proved that science and God are secular therefore assuming they are is not science, it's guess work

The very same guess work you oppose ironically enough

You place "spiritual"/religious connotations behing the word "truth from which defines you actually "use their own dictionaries while amending them on the fly constantly cross contaminating disciplines"

Truth

# a fact that has been verified; "at last he knew the truth"; "the truth is that he didn't want to o it"

# conformity to reality or actuality; "they debated the truth of the proposition"; "the situation brought home to us the blunt truth of the military threat"; "he was famous for the truth of his portraits"; "he turned to religion in his search for eternal verities"

# accuracy: the quality of being near to the true value; "he was beginning to doubt the accuracy of his compass"; "the lawyer questioned the truth of my account"define: truth - Google Search

It's not pragmatic in the least to define science by what hasn't been proven rather what science has proven because like I've said,..Science is truth, we're just waiting for people to discover the truth so that we may consider it scientific