Lines of Evidence

[Kylie]

More and more people accept well evidenced science, as they are educated on the same. Those who have religious beliefs, will either adjust their religious beliefs to accommodate these realities, or they may abandon them altogether. World wide statistics on the state of religious beliefs, will support this trend.

I've always noticed that it is religion that has altered its viewpoint to come into line with what science has said rather than science altering its viewpoint to better fit with what religion discovers.

 

[bhsmte]

I've always noticed that it is religion that has altered its viewpoint to come into line with what science has said rather than science altering its viewpoint to better fit with what religion discovers.

Indeed.

Science goes about its work independent of religious claims and religious claims do not alter the work of science.

On the other hand, the discoveries of science, has had a huge impact on how some form or adapt their religious beliefs and it will continue to.

 

[Davian]

Maybe you need a boost.

It didn't help you.

 

[Kylie]

On the other hand, the discoveries of science, has had a huge impact on how some form or adapt their religious beliefs and it will continue to.

And this happens for one simple reason.

Science works.

We've seen countless times that religious belief is not able to get things done.

 

[bhsmte]

And this happens for one simple reason.

Science works.

We've seen countless times that religious belief is not able to get things done.

Religious beliefs can be fine for some and actually help them.

For others, religious beliefs force them to deny reality, to judge others and to basically use their beliefs as a weapon.

Not hard to see who fits in which category on these boards.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

This is all driven by personal psychology and our personal psychological needs can change as we mature.

 

[bhsmte]

Freud was a smart dude, but he got more wrong than he got right.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Freud was a smart dude, but he got more wrong than he got right.

I guess in your imagination you are one of the world's greatest original thinkers.

 

[bhsmte]

I guess in your imagination you are one of the world's greatest original thinkers.

Well, I like to deal with established facts and solid evidence. Imagination really has little to do with it, but you can assume what you like.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well, I like to deal with established facts and solid evidence. Imagination really has little to do with it, but you can assume what you like.

You're still young, in time when you've had a little life experience -- I'm pretty sure you'll change you way of thinking. Everyone does. Welcome to reality,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9JGJM1d_HY
Gonna Change My Way of Thinking - Bob Dylan

 

[bhsmte]

You're still young, in time when you've had a little life experience -- I'm pretty sure you'll change you way of thinking. Everyone does. Welcome to reality,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9JGJM1d_HY
Gonna Change My Way of Thinking - Bob Dylan

Does going from a Christian of 40 years to an atheist towards the Christian God count as changing my way of thinking?

 

[Doveaman]

Ok, so the chain is:
It's true because the bible says it
The bible is true because it's infallible
The bible is infallible because it's the word of god
The bible is the word of God because God told me
By God told me, I mean he made me really sure that I'm right.

Nope.

It's true because God inspired it.
The Bible is a record of that truth.
Those who are inspired by God know the Bible is true.

 

[Doveaman]

How does writing a story down in a book make the story true?

Because it's a true story written down in a book.

 

[bhsmte]

Nope.

It's true because God inspired it.
The Bible is a record of that truth.
Those who are inspired by God know the Bible is true.

And you know the bible is inspired by God because, the bible says so, correct?

 

[Doveaman]

Ok. If that works for you that is fine.

Cool.

With that said, you claim there is no reality in science and you reject the theories that come from the same.

I reject the theories that contradict the historical, biblical record. I am open to all the others.

If that is your position, I am sure you can understand, how some will disagree that the bible provides a more reliable reality, then science.

They disagree because they haven't figured out how to test the Bible. The Bible is about truth. Science is about theories.

Who among us would ignore historical truths in favor of invented theories? A scientist.

 

[bhsmte]

Cool.
I reject the theories that contradict the historical, biblical record. I am open to all the others.
They disagree because they haven't figured out how to test the Bible. The Bible is about truth. Science is about theories.

Who among us would ignore historical truths in favor of invented theories? A scientist.

If the bible is about truth, it should stand up well to objective testing, such as the historical method.

In reality, the book does not do well when held up to objective scrutiny and this has been known for a long time. Which is why, people choose to believe some or all of it on faith, not on objective evidence.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Cool.
I reject the theories that contradict the historical, biblical record. I am open to all the others.

How do we know what part of the Bible is the historical, biblical record?

They disagree because they haven't figured out how to test the Bible. The Bible is about truth. Science is about theories.

Who among us would ignore historical truths in favor of invented theories? A scientist.

Scientific Theories aren't true?

Germs don't cause disease?
Matter is not made up of small particles?
Gravitational attraction is not related to the mass of the objects attracting each other?

 

[Doveaman]

Dove a man's statement: 'There is no reality is science, only theories invented to explain reality. ....'

I suspect he meant to say 'There is no reality in science, ....'

That’s right. Scientific theories are nothing more than invented explanations that may or may not be a true description of reality.

The explanation is distinct and separate from the reality.

[FONT=&quot]'....According to the founding father of the history of science,George Sarton (1884–1956), the “main purpose” of science, pursued by disinterested scholars, was “the discovery of truth.”[/FONT]

If this was their main purpose scientists would rely more on the teaching of Jesus:

“If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” -- (John 8:31-32).

 

[Doveaman]

IMO, I tend to think, Doveman is stating; he doesn't care for the realities that scientific evidence leads to.

The evidence is fine. It is your interpretation of the evidence that I don't care for.

 

[Doveaman]

I've learned more over the last ten years, than I've learned in my entire life and a lot of it has to do with opening up to good science.

I've learned a lot too. That's why I reject bad science.