Is Science the Only Means of Knowing?

Is Science the Only Means of Knowing?

  • I'm Christian and my answer is yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm Christian and my answer is no

    Votes: 14 60.9%
  • I'm not Christian and my answer is yes

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • I'm not Christian and my answer is no

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • Total voters
    23

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Can you give me an example of something you know about the natural world because of Jesus.
'Believe It Or Not', perhaps a strange thing to some believers or unbelievers,


the first thing I learned after trusting the Creator and looking to Him and reading His Word,
like the very first and apparently necessary 'idea' to grasp in trusting Yahweh (God),

is "all men are liars", (including me), until or before we are set free. In Ephesians chapter 2 it reports that the whole society is subject to the prince of the power of the air. (I was also).
Only after being purchased by the blood of Jesus is anyone set free from that prince.

I know this is a spiritual thing to be observed when Yahweh Permits, not as if seen with the physical eyes and so forth, but the results are certainly seen and observed every day.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Can you give me an example of something you know about the natural world because of Jesus.
You haven't yet answered Larnievc's question. @yeshuaslavejeff , saying that God's word is the most accurate way of knowing anything seems rather overconfident, even for Christian Forums. I should think that most Christians would agree that the Bible is not the best way of learning your three times table*, or how to tie your shoelaces, or how to bake a cake, or the Periodic Table.

*I was going to say "two times table", but then remembered Noah's Ark. You win this time, Yahweh!
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,271
7,628
51
✟312,681.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
'Believe It Or Not', perhaps a strange thing to some believers or unbelievers,


the first thing I learned after trusting the Creator and looking to Him and reading His Word,
like the very first and apparently necessary 'idea' to grasp in trusting Yahweh (God),

is "all men are liars", (including me), until or before we are set free. In Ephesians chapter 2 it reports that the whole society is subject to the prince of the power of the air. (I was also).
Only after being purchased by the blood of Jesus is anyone set free from that prince.

I know this is a spiritual thing to be observed when Yahweh Permits, not as if seen with the physical eyes and so forth, but the results are certainly seen and observed every day.
I dunno man, any psychology book will tell you about our ability to lie.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
You haven't yet answered Larnievc's question. @yeshuaslavejeff , saying that God's word is the most accurate way of knowing anything seems rather overconfident, even for Christian Forums. I should think that most Christians would agree that the Bible is not the best way of learning your three times table*, or how to tie your shoelaces, or how to bake a cake, or the Periodic Table.

*I was going to say "two times table", but then remembered Noah's Ark. You win this time, Yahweh!
I shall differ from you here. I think @yeshuaslavejeff is asserting that he learned from the Bible that men lie. This is confirmed by many studies in psychology, but @yeshuaslavejeff acquired the knowledge from the Bible. That is an example of learning something of the natural world "because of Jesus".

Personally, I learned that from observation of myself and others. I am hard pressed to recall where it is presented in Scripture, but if it gave yeshuaslavejeff an insight and "knowledge" that would seem to be a good thing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I shall differ from you here. I think @yeshuaslavejeff is asserting that he learned from the Bible that men lie. This is confirmed by many studies in psychology, but @yeshuaslavejeff acquired the knowledge from the Bible. That is an example of learning something of the natural world "because of Jesus".
Fair enough. But as you yourself observed, it's easy enough to learn this in plenty of other places as well. This is hardly proof that YSJ is right to say that the Bible is the best way to find out the truth about anything.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Fair enough. But as you yourself observed, it's easy enough to learn this in plenty of other places as well. This is hardly proof that YSJ is right to say that the Bible is the best way to find out the truth about anything.
Absolutely, but Larnievc's question, as stated, was not "What have you learned of nature from Jesus that you could not have learned elsewhere?", but simply "What have you learned of nature from Jesus". I simply wanted to point out that YSJ had answered the question - I'm not disputing that it wasn't a very good answer to the implied question.
I think, when I was a Christian, I learned things from the Bible that I could have learned elsewhere, but I learned them there first.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Absolutely, but Larnievc's question, as stated, was not "What have you learned of nature from Jesus that you could not have learned elsewhere?", but simply "What have you learned of nature from Jesus". I simply wanted to point out that YSJ had answered the question - I'm not disputing that it wasn't a very good answer to the implied question.
I think, when I was a Christian, I learned things from the Bible that I could have learned elsewhere, but I learned them there first.
Very well. You are right to correct me. @yeshuaslavejeff , I concede that you did answer the Larnievc's question.
However, that question was asked in response to your saying
"God's Word is the best and most powerful and most accurate correct way of "knowing" anything."
And Opiolite has already proved this wrong, when he said that he learned that people tell lies from observation of himself and others.

There are much better and more accurate ways to learn just about anything, including the example YSJ gave, than from God's Word.

Or do you have any more examples, @yeshuaslavejeff , to show that God's word is the best and most accurate way to learn anything?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
God's Word is the best and most powerful and most accurate correct way of "knowing" anything. (per the Title question)

Let's see...

Did you learn formal written addition from the Bible?
Did you learn to spell "precarious" from the Bible?
Did you learn the story of Macbeth from the Bible?
Did you learn to play football from the Bible?

Does the Bible tell you what the weather is like today?
Does the Bible tell you if you have a message waiting on your phone?
Does the Bible tell you what time it will be in half an hour?
Does the Bible tell you the quickest way to walk to the supermarket?

Would you like to revise your statement that "God's Word is the best and most powerful and most accurate correct way of "knowing" anything"?
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
@Resha Caner I have not voted since I found none of the options available adequately described my position. The following observations may help to define that position, though I'm not optimistic.

1. I find myself closely aligned with much of what @InterestedAtheist has said.

2. I fear that there is a universe of ambiguity and contradiction lurking in the word "know". Thus, I don't really know if I know what you mean by knowing. (And down the rabbit hole we go, passing on the way the bald man who had rabbits tattooed on his head, since - from a distance - they might look like hares.)

3. Then I consider the related words, belief and acceptance. I don't know anything, if know implies a high level of certainty. I don't believe anything, except in a colloquial sense. I do accept many things, especially those established (provisionally) by science as being the currently most probable explanation for observations and thus, as a pragmatic exercise, I shall pretend they are true. I don't know they are true. I doubt I can ever know they are true, but most of the time it would be foolish to pretend they were not. (Lead weights fall down, helium balloons fall up. All bets are off in micro-gravity.)

Yes, well, in my experience quandries such as this only occur on Internet forums and never in daily conversation. As such, my attempt to bring that everyday common sense into this conversation can be found here:

For me, when I say I know something, it means I'm confident enough in my knowledge that I will act on it as if my knowledge is true.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Do you know there is a difference between non-non-Christians and atheists?

Can you see many non-Christian votes in the poll?

Your ability to assess data is insufficient to convince me of its existence.
There wasn´t a single vote "nonChristians-yes" at the point in time when I wrote my post. So my conclusion that there weren´t any "atheist-yes" votes isn´t even an assessment of data, it is a mere observation. Well, ok, I guess it takes sort of a syllogism to figure out that all atheists are non-Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yes, well, in my experience quandries such as this only occur on Internet forums and never in daily conversation.
I am not sure what you see as a quandary. The ambiguity of words? The contrast of belief and acceptance? The uncertainties inherent in interpreting reality? They don't strike me as quandaries, simply perspectives of reality, whatever that is.
The ambiguity of words often dominates daily conversation. Since I actively practice pragmatic acceptance discussion of it is consequently absent from daily conversation.

As such, my attempt to bring that everyday common sense into this conversation can be found here:
I don't place any value on the concept of common sense, so I shall pretend you mean something much more logical and reasoned.

You say: For me, when I say I know something, it means I'm confident enough in my knowledge that I will act on it as if my knowledge is true.

I say: For me, when I say I accept something, it means I'm confident enough, based on the information I have acquired, that this is most likely the best current explanation for what is observed and can inform my related actions.

From a practical standpoint there is likely no significant difference in the consequences of these two approaches. From an epistemological standpoint they seem to me radically different.

 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
From a practical standpoint there is likely no significant difference in the consequences of these two approaches. From an epistemological standpoint they seem to me radically different.

Like others, I think this whole conversation is very odd. I once had a conversation with @quatona where he replied with something to the effect of (paraphrasing): If that's how you feel, just say it. Don't beat around the bush. What you feel is what you feel and no one can tell you differently. Though I believe his comments only referred to feelings, I feel (ha!) much the same applies to how one thinks or how one interprets an experience. I think what I think. I've experienced what I've experienced.

For him to then come back and make such a big deal about my experiences with unbelievers in conversations he never witnessed is just ... very, very odd. If @quatona doesn't think science is the only means of knowing, fine. He also thinks what he thinks, feels what he feels, and experiences what he experiences ... though my experience with @quatona is that, if he replies to this, he will tell me all the reasons this post is wrong. I don't recall ever having a conversation with him where he ever did anything else. So either every thought I've ever had is wrong, or @quatona will argue with anything and everything at the drop of a hat.

And, when it's all said and done, despite all the arguing, I will conclude most of it is quibbling over semantics, word choice, etc.

There are times precise word choice is necessary, and there are times one needs to ask for clarification before a post can be understood. But I suspect most of the time such things are done at CF so that a post can be carved up in order to select specific sub-sub-sub-points that can be refuted.

I'm an engineer, and engineers have a reputation for being socially awkward poor communicators. In terms of face-to-face verbal communication, I've had my fair share of awkward moments, yet I've been told (everywhere else except here by non-believers) that my written communication skills are very good.

One observation I've made about engineers and communication is similar to what I see here. Rather than say something common like, "I went walking today," engineers will make some odd statement like "I used my legs to transport my body across a horizontal surface during the 32nd revolution of the planet earth." Maybe that's more precise wording ... but it's just plain idiotic to speak that way in casual conversation.

There is a common sense - a common understanding of the context of a conversation that allows the use of the word "know" instead of reverting to an awkward avoidance of that word in order to remain true to some obscure philosophical point. All it does is add to the confusion rather than dispel it, or it causes people to think you're avoiding the question like a politician, or it makes them think you're just plain weird.

Bottom line, my first impression is that your choice of wording is only a semantic difference from mine rather than a radically different epistemological standpoint. But feel free to elaborate on the major differences you see.

[end of rant]
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
There is a common sense - a common understanding of the context of a conversation that allows the use of the word "know" instead of reverting to an awkward avoidance of that word in order to remain true to some obscure philosophical point. All it does is add to the confusion rather than dispel it, or it causes people to think you're avoiding the question like a politician, or it makes them think you're just plain weird.
Your earlier points in your post were interesting and I enjoyed reading them, but I completely missed their relevance to what I had posted. No matter.

Your quoted comments above are true for everyday conversation, but the entire point of the thread seems to be to go beyond the conventions of everyday conversation and explore and illuminate "obscure philosophical points", so I am perplexed that you seem to object to this having happened.

Bottom line, my first impression is that your choice of wording is only a semantic difference from mine rather than a radically different epistemological standpoint. But feel free to elaborate on the major differences you see.
Your version suggests you think there are such things as truth and reality. I don't have any such conviction. I just find it practical to act as if there were.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Your version suggests you think there are such things as truth and reality. I don't have any such conviction. I just find it practical to act as if there were.

How often do you have to remind yourself nothing is real and you're just pretending?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
How often do you have to remind yourself nothing is real and you're just pretending?
1. I didn't say nothing was real. I said I don't know what reality is, if anything.
2. My behaviour were I to think that reality were assured would not differ from my behaviour were I to pretend it is assured. Consequently, I don't need to remind myself.
3. While I don't need to remind myself, I often recall that the reality of reality (if I may so call it) is uncertain. This may occur several times a day, or barely once a week depending upon circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
2. My behaviour were I to think that reality were assured would not differ from my behaviour were I to pretend it is assured. Consequently, I don't need to remind myself.

1) How do you know your behavior would not differ? 2) Was there a time when you felt you knew something about reality? 3) If so, what caused you to change? 4) If it makes no difference, why is it important to you?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Like others, I think this whole conversation is very odd. I once had a conversation with @quatona where he replied with something to the effect of (paraphrasing): If that's how you feel, just say it. Don't beat around the bush. What you feel is what you feel and no one can tell you differently. Though I believe his comments only referred to feelings, I feel (ha!) much the same applies to how one thinks or how one interprets an experience. I think what I think. I've experienced what I've experienced.

For him to then come back and make such a big deal about my experiences with unbelievers in conversations he never witnessed is just ... very, very odd. If @quatona doesn't think science is the only means of knowing, fine. He also thinks what he thinks, feels what he feels, and experiences what he experiences ... though my experience with @quatona is that, if he replies to this, he will tell me all the reasons this post is wrong. I don't recall ever having a conversation with him where he ever did anything else. So either every thought I've ever had is wrong, or @quatona will argue with anything and everything at the drop of a hat.
Well, if you´re proven wrong you´re proven wrong. Don´t turn it into a personal attack on me.
(And I guess when I ask you to actually find the quote you are ascribing to me in your first paragraph, you will also just tell me to search for it myself.)
 
Upvote 0

Resha Caner

Expert Fool
Sep 16, 2010
9,171
1,398
✟148,100.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Well, if you´re proven wrong you´re proven wrong.

I've been proven wrong? How so?

And I guess when I ask you to actually find the quote you are ascribing to me in your first paragraph, you will also just tell me to search for it myself.

You don't recall the conversation? Do you recall any prior conversations with me?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: MrsFoundit
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
I've been proven wrong? How so?
In the other thread you stated that a whole lot of atheists assert "Science is the only way of knowing". I doubted the accuracy of that claim, and asked you to produce a couple of quotes. You refused to and told me to search for them myself. I couldn´t find any.
Then you referred me to this thread which isn´t really supporting your claim.



You don't recall the conversation?
You aren´t willing to substantiate this claim, either?
 
Upvote 0