Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Biblical inerrancy vs infallibility
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aiki" data-source="post: 68492510" data-attributes="member: 178791"><p>I'm not so sure. Especially when there is a philosophical dimension to the bias against new or marginalized data, suppression rather than support is what the response from majority of experts will be. That's what Ben Stein's documentary demonstrated. Secular scientists, who by and large are naturalists/materialists, have a strong philosophical motive to deride and dismiss anything in science that might weaken the ground for their naturalism/materialism. Certainly, anything that would indicate that there is a supernatural agency at work in the universe simply cannot be allowed to gain traction - particularly when there has been such vocal and sweeping dismissal and denigration of such a possibility by naturalist/materialist scientists. </p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>No way? Really? I think you're overstating yourself here a bit. Being a non-expert does not entirely disqualify you from assessing the claims experts make. Especially when experts are interpreting the data of science, which they always inevitably do, their conclusions often become philosophical not scientific. And when this is so, you don't have to be an expert scientist to take note and object if necessary. Dawkins is a prime example of a scientist telling us what to think philosophically. As he aptly demonstrates, being a scientist does not make you a good philosopher. But he is not unique in his attempts to pass off a philosophy as a fact of science. This is generally what most scientists do to one degree or another. And when they do, it isn't necessary to be an expert in their scientific field to assess the validity of their philosophical interpretation of the data.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this not what you are already doing - just not with fringe theories? Does acting the way you describe in your post not accord with your personal biases? It seems so to me...</p><p></p><p>Selah.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aiki, post: 68492510, member: 178791"] I'm not so sure. Especially when there is a philosophical dimension to the bias against new or marginalized data, suppression rather than support is what the response from majority of experts will be. That's what Ben Stein's documentary demonstrated. Secular scientists, who by and large are naturalists/materialists, have a strong philosophical motive to deride and dismiss anything in science that might weaken the ground for their naturalism/materialism. Certainly, anything that would indicate that there is a supernatural agency at work in the universe simply cannot be allowed to gain traction - particularly when there has been such vocal and sweeping dismissal and denigration of such a possibility by naturalist/materialist scientists. No way? Really? I think you're overstating yourself here a bit. Being a non-expert does not entirely disqualify you from assessing the claims experts make. Especially when experts are interpreting the data of science, which they always inevitably do, their conclusions often become philosophical not scientific. And when this is so, you don't have to be an expert scientist to take note and object if necessary. Dawkins is a prime example of a scientist telling us what to think philosophically. As he aptly demonstrates, being a scientist does not make you a good philosopher. But he is not unique in his attempts to pass off a philosophy as a fact of science. This is generally what most scientists do to one degree or another. And when they do, it isn't necessary to be an expert in their scientific field to assess the validity of their philosophical interpretation of the data. Is this not what you are already doing - just not with fringe theories? Does acting the way you describe in your post not accord with your personal biases? It seems so to me... Selah. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Biblical inerrancy vs infallibility
Top
Bottom