How has scientific knowledge affected your faith?

[AV1611VET]

And if you were willing to accept my offer of recommending books on paleaontology and sedimentation then you would understand why your suggestions are silly.

Do your books agree that God did it?

If not, why should I read them?

If so, then your books are preaching to the choir.

 

[lesliedellow]

But what if God shook the earth like it was one of those snow crystal things you see at Christmas time?

What if Nelson's Column was in New York, and I was ten foot tall.

 

[AV1611VET]

What if Nelson's Column was in New York, and I was ten foot tall.

You still wouldn't understand, would you?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

But what if God shook the earth like it was one of those snow crystal things you see at Christmas time?

Is your mission here to convince those on the fence struggling to believe in God, that in fact belief in God is a rather silly notion?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is your mission here to convince those on the fence struggling to believe in God, that in fact belief in God is a rather silly notion?

My "mission here" is to show people that God can, in fact, do it.

I think there are a LOT of things that people who prefer science over Scripture overlook.

And for the record, I would think a thread like this would be refreshing to someone who is talking about being weak in the faith.

 

[JackRT]

But what if God shook the earth like it was one of those snow crystal things you see at Christmas time?

This typical of young earth creationists. There is always one more "But what if ..." And the "what if" usually boggles the mind.

 

[KWCrazy]

A fundamentalist YEC literally believes the earth is 6000 years old. He literally believes all animals species were on the ark. He literally believes the adam and even and talking snake bit.

By your definition, Jesus was a fundamentalist. So how do we, as followers of Christ, reject what He taught? We do not. We accept that if Jesus affirmed something it was a fact. We do not reject science. We acknowledge that there is a higher power, and that this existence is a fleeting moment in which we decide whether to accept salvation or reject it. If you choose to reject it, that's your choice and you will live with the consequence of that choice. If you accept it, you will live with the consequence of THAT choice. Many of us know that there is more to this world than the simple physical things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. The not all know this reality is sad but unmistakably true.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

My "mission here" is to show people that God can, in fact, do it.

I think there are a LOT of things that people who prefer science over Scripture overlook.

And for the record, I would think a thread like this would be refreshing to someone who is talking about being weak in the faith.

As such a person, what I get from this thread is that Christian explanations of natural phenomenon are no more believable than gods pulling the sun in a sky chariot.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Psst. Hey buddy. That's supposed to have been the argument from absurdity, i.e. "Your position is so stupid that you can justify literal Potterism". You don't then turn around and say, "Yeah, that's fine, to that person Harry Potter is literally true", you instead pause and try to understand how the heck your position went so far off the rails!

Fundamentally, you've admitted that your logical construct can admit literally any position, regardless of how insane it is. Last Thursdayism, Church Of The Subgenius, Islam, Christianity, Scientology, Potterism, Satanism, none of these can be in any way distinguished by your thought process. It can entertain both an epistemology founded on "X=FALSE" and an epistemology founded on "X=TRUE". It is utterly useless. You need to rethink your position, and come up with a better way of judging epistemologies than, "Welp, hard solipsism can't be solved yet, so I guess anything goes!"



And if I smacked you in the face with a baseball bat, I'm sure you would find this argument extremely unconvincing in court. Or am I wrong? If so, allow me to procure said baseball bat, because this is perhaps the one case where Argumentum Ad Baculum is not a logical fallacy!

You fail to understand. Science itself is just as likely to be true as Potterism in your analogy, as Science is supported by its own definition of what is evidence and what not. Likewise would Potterism. Science could not conclude what it believes is absolutely true, as no absolute, even probabilities remain assumptions based on an assumed end point.
If you accept a Faith, you can actually apply an Absolute and dismiss Pottersism, while Science without it has to concede on philosophical grounds that Potterism has as much chance to be true ultimately as Science (see the Argument of Richard Bernstein on non-Cartesian Dualism).

I would accept that you hit me in the face with a baseball bat and take you to court using Scientific Method. But If I held firmly that you did not, then as I would not file a suit, you would not go to court. This is not fallacy in practice, but it is Philosophically speaking as again one cannot be sure of any stimulus one receives regardless of its source or intensity. Nice homespun analogies, but not very philosophically valid.

 

[Cimorene]

It hasn't had much of an effect on it but I'm not a fundamentalist or anything.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Disagree.

Instead, you used many, many,...many words to simply declare that certain physical claims aren't allowed to be tested and should just be "believed". And the only requirement to qualify for such a claim, seems to be that it should be part of the particular religion you happen to believe in.

But what I really think, is that the actual requirement is that
1. it should be part of the religion you adhere to
and
2. if tested, the claim will be shown to be false or very unlikely

Because I'm quite sure, that you wouldn't hesitate for a second to use scientific evidence that you think fits into "biblical history". Amirite?



Science is a method to study the natural world / reality.
Using this method results in models about phenomena of nature, on how they work.
Those models represent our body of knowledge of "how stuff works".
That knowledge is then used in a practical way, to build new technology.
The end product of which, are things like cars, computers, healthier lives,..

Science is a very good and succesful way to differentiate between truth (small 't') and fiction.

And you have given me exactly zero reasons for why this method shouldn't be applied to investigate claims about human ancestry or geological phenomena.

How do you know I didn't explain the matter as you of your own admission stated you didn't read my posts. I will not waste effort answering someone who remains wilfully ignorant and does not have the common courtesy to read someone's argument. I am not going to type reasoned arguments and be told 'I didn't read it' and be expected to continue while a half-baked response not actually based on what I said, gets thrown back at me. Good day sir.

By the way, please read up about the actual basis of Scientific Method, you keep on embarrassing yourself. You would be laughed at in any Philosophy class.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

You fail to understand. Science itself is just as likely to be true as Potterism in your analogy, as Science is supported by its own definition of what is evidence and what not. Likewise would Potterism. Science could not conclude what it believes is absolutely true, as no absolute, even probabilities remain assumptions based on an assumed end point.
If you accept a Faith, you can actually apply an Absolute and dismiss Pottersism, while Science without it has to concede on philosophical grounds that Potterism has as much chance to be true ultimately as Science (see the Argument of Richard Bernstein on non-Cartesian Dualism).

I would accept that you hit me in the face with a baseball bat and take you to court using Scientific Method. But If I held firmly that you did not, then as I would not file a suit, you would not go to court. This is not fallacy in practice, but it is Philosophically speaking as again one cannot be sure of any stimulus one receives regardless of its source or intensity. Nice homespun analogies, but not very philosophically valid.

As long as you held firmly to the idea that he didn't hit you with a bat, despite him doing so, would you remain uninjured? Could you hold fast to your belief it didn't happen while nursing a broken nose?

 

[Simmo11]

But what if God shook the earth like it was one of those snow crystal things you see at Christmas time?

This is one of the reasons why Americans are the butt of so many jokes all around the world.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As long as you held firmly to the idea that he didn't hit you with a bat, despite him doing so, would you remain uninjured? Could you hold fast to your belief it didn't happen while nursing a broken nose?

Yes, I could. Buddhist monks in deep meditation can respond without being consciously aware such as in Zen, this includes awareness of pain. Catatonic Schizophrenics can stab themselves without pain. The Boxers in the Boxer Rebellion or Zulu in the Anglo-Zulu war believed so firmly in their own invulnerability that they ignored gunshot wounds and in some cases continued to deny that they had been hurt as they died, based on belief alone. As I cannot prove that I or the material world actually exists, neither can I prove that I was hurt by your baseball bat. In practice as it is reasonable that I would be hurt thereby, everyone would say I was hurt, but it is not a 'definite' point that I have to acknowledge the existence of the pain or injury. The fact that you see it or I feel it, is not proof of it actually occuring as my senses are an artificial construct of nerve impulses (hence phantom pain occurs) as are yours nor can it be proven outside a framework (Medicine or self-awareness or whatever). Besides altered states clearly shows the fluidity of observation-based reality.
In the long run as Science cannot make an absolute pronouncement, neither can Science say I was 'definitely' hurt, it can only say it is highly probable that I was. With no Absolute to base its probability on, we are forced to conclude that the actual validity of that assertion of probability cannot be proven to be more valid than the assertion that it didn't happen. It may appear that I was hurt, but there is no way to prove I actually was, which is the point.

 

[The Cadet]

You fail to understand. Science itself is just as likely to be true as Potterism in your analogy

If this is the conclusion your logic leads to, then your logic is flawed and you need to rethink it. Your framework is useless, as it offers absolutely no distinction between epistemologies that work and epistemologies that don't. The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you believe it, Hogwarts is not real. And if your logical framework cannot determine that, it is useless and must be discarded.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By your definition, Jesus was a fundamentalist.

And you think that bothers me?

So how do we, as followers of Christ, reject what He taught? We do not. We accept that if Jesus affirmed something it was a fact.

Apparantly, the pope does not. How come he can accept rational science, and not you?

We do not reject science.

Clearly, you do.

We acknowledge that there is a higher power, and that this existence is a fleeting moment in which we decide whether to accept salvation or reject it.

That's entirely irrelevant to what the facts of reality are.

If you choose to reject it, that's your choice and you will live with the consequence of that choice.

I don't "choose" what I believe.

If you accept it, you will live with the consequence of THAT choice. Many of us know that there is more to this world than the simple physical things we can see, hear, smell, touch and taste. The not all know this reality is sad but unmistakably true.

All this preaching is irrelevant to the point at hand.
The facts of reality are what they are, wheter there are deities or not.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If this is the conclusion your logic leads to, then your logic is flawed and you need to rethink it. Your framework is useless, as it offers absolutely no distinction between epistemologies that work and epistemologies that don't. The fact of the matter is that no matter how much you believe it, Hogwarts is not real. And if your logical framework cannot determine that, it is useless and must be discarded.

You again miss the point. My framework CAN disprove Potterism. A purely Scientific one can't do so absolutely, only say it is less probable to vanishingly unlikely. As Science has no Absolute upon which to base this 'probability' its actual VALIDITY cannot be shown above any other systems. Hence, by your above post you are supposed to abandon science as it cannot show Potterism false by its epistemology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How do you know I didn't explain the matter as you of your own admission stated you didn't read my posts.

Don't change my words.
I did read your post. One particular post, I just scanned the last few paragraphes, because they were building on things earlier in the post, which I already countered, making the rest useless to the point being made.

I will not waste effort answering someone who remains wilfully ignorant and does not have the common courtesy to read someone's argument. I am not going to type reasoned arguments and be told 'I didn't read it' and be expected to continue while a half-baked response not actually based on what I said, gets thrown back at me. Good day sir.

By the way, please read up about the actual basis of Scientific Method, you keep on embarrassing yourself. You would be laughed at in any Philosophy class.

Dude.... I can only repeat myself...

You have given me exactly zero reasons why the scientific method shouldn't be used to investigate claims about physical events in reality.

We aren't talking about "metaphysical" claims here. We aren't talking about events that took place in "ghost world" outside of "empirical reality".

No, we are talking about claims concering the origins of HUMANS and their ancestry, about GEOLOGICAL events, about ACTUAL PLACES and ACTUAL CITIES.

This are claims ABOUT physical reality that are well within the scope of scientific inquiry.

Again: you have given me zero reasons to not use the scientific method to investigate such claims.

Philosophy, smishopholy....
Physical claims about physical reality can, and will be, investigated by empirical methods. I understand you don't like your religious lore to be submitted to scientific scrutiny, but that is not a valid reason not to do it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Don't change my words.
I did read your post. One particular post, I just scanned the last few paragraphes, because they were building on things earlier in the post, which I already countered, making the rest useless to the point being made.



Dude.... I can only repeat myself...

You have given me exactly zero reasons why the scientific method shouldn't be used to investigate claims about physical events in reality.

We aren't talking about "metaphysical" claims here. We aren't talking about events that took place in "ghost world" outside of "empirical reality".

No, we are talking about claims concering the origins of HUMANS and their ancestry, about GEOLOGICAL events, about ACTUAL PLACES and ACTUAL CITIES.

This are claims ABOUT physical reality that are well within the scope of scientific inquiry.

Again: you have given me zero reasons to not use the scientific method to investigate such claims.

Philosophy, smishopholy....
Physical claims about physical reality can, and will be, investigated by empirical methods. I understand you don't like your religious lore to be submitted to scientific scrutiny, but that is not a valid reason not to do it.

You clearly do not understand. You can investigate empirically, you will likely get useful information. It does however not disprove anything that had originally been stated. It does disprove scientific hypotheses based thereon, but not the original narrative which IS based in a different metaphysics than the scientific narrative derived from it.

You did not 'counter' anything. Your replies show me your profound lack of understanding of the knowledge base of Science. It is a waste of time responding to you as you are unable to see that 'evidence' that you mention only applies if you accept empiricism, something that Science itself is discarding (if you finish reading the posts you refuse to do, you would see this). It is pointless arguing with someone who accepts blindly what he sees is reality and what 'popular' science says is fact.

Good day, sir. I have wasted enough of my life on you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You clearly do not understand. You can investigate empirically, you will likely get useful information. It does however not disprove anything that had originally been stated.

If a testable claim is made about physical reality, and empirical testing shows the claim wrong, then the claim is disproven. And it matters not where the claim come from or who originally made it.

It does disprove scientific hypotheses based thereon

It disproves the thing being tested. ie, the claim.

, but not the original narrative which IS based in a different metaphysics than the scientific narrative derived from it.

Claims about geological events or ancestry/origins of humans are not metaphysical claims. They are claims about physical reality.

Just because they are written down in a religious book, does not make them metaphysical.

Your replies show me your profound lack of understanding of the knowledge base of Science.

Your objection to submitting claims about physical reality to scientific scrutiny show me that you are quite desperate to not question your a priori beliefs.

It is a waste of time responding to you as you are unable to see that 'evidence' that you mention only applies if you accept empiricism

Why wouldn't you accept empiricism?
You accept empiricism every second of the day.

This is why you look both ways when crossing the street. It's why you push the power button to boot your pc. It's why you don't put your hand in the fire.

It is pointless arguing with someone who accepts blindly what he sees is reality and what he is told is fact.

Lol, ow my, the irony..................................

YOU are the one who doesn't want claims about physical reality to be subject to scientific scrutiny. YOU are the one who insist on "just accepting" these claims.

Good day, sir. I have wasted enough of my life on you.

Bye.

When you are ready to provide us with an actual valid reason why claims about physical reality shouldn't be submitted to scientific scrutiny, I'm all ears.