Conflict between religion and science

[bhsmte]

The sons and daughters of God. For all those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

Sons and daughters of God?

Taking the many different interpretations christians hold, I would imagine the grading would be all over the map, just as individual beliefs are.

Good luck with that.

 

[Davian]

No. It shifts the focus to people's actions.

The disciples of Christ loved and prayed for their enemies. Muhammad's followers behead theirs.

For example...

 

[Davian]

...
"If not for science, how would we know that empiricism works?" - Davian

Empiricism and the scientific method are very-nearly synonyms. I'll re-write your above quote and you'll see how they are synonyms and how the above quote is somewhat circular:

"The scientific method as an epistemology. There's nothing scientific about the scientific method. The scientific method is the basis of science, not the result of science."

Very-nearly synonyms, agreed.

When I wrote that, I was thinking, empiricism is a theory of knowledge, and theories are validated by scientific methodology.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The test is looking at the fruit.

If the fruit is the same kind of fruit Jesus and His disciples produced then they are the same tree. If not , then its a different tree.

Does one gather grapes from a thorn bush?

Given the many and varied views on what this "fruit" is supposed to look like, it is likely that whether the test result is positive or negative will depend largely (if not entirely) on one's current theological commitments. Moreover, the success of the test is likely to be evaluated according to those commitments. Is this the gold standard approach?

 

[Tree of Life]

Very-nearly synonyms, agreed.

When I wrote that, I was thinking, empiricism is a theory of knowledge, and theories are validated by scientific methodology.

Empiricism is not a theory of knowledge. It's an epistemology. It's not waiting or asking to be scientifically tested. It provides the rational basis for scientific testing. Empiricism claims that we come to know through our sense experience rather than through logic, revelation, or some other source. How can this possibly be verified or falsified through sense experience? Therefore the activity of science comes from an empiricist epistemology rather than the other way around.

 

[Davian]

Empiricism is not a theory of knowledge. It's an epistemology.<snip>

Epistemology |i&#716;pist&#601;&#712;mäl&#601;j&#275;| noun Philosophy
- the theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

Try again?

 

[Tree of Life]

You seem to have been using the word "theory" to mean "scientific theory". And empiricism is certainly not a scientific theory.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

What is that?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Given the many and varied views on what this "fruit" is supposed to look like, it is likely that whether the test result is positive or negative will depend largely (if not entirely) on one's current theological commitments. Moreover, the success of the test is likely to be evaluated according to those commitments. Is this the gold standard approach?

It is using Christ's life as our standard.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Sons and daughters of God?

ent interpretations christians hold, I would imagine the grading would be all over the map, just as individual beliefs are.

Good luck with that.

You act like it is so hard to tell if a person is living in a way that would be pleasing to Christ.

Only on this forum have I had people suggest this.

 

[Davian]

You seem to have been using the word "theory" to mean "scientific theory". And empiricism is certainly not a scientific theory.

Can (non-scientific) theories not be tested, and shown to be successful?

 

[Davian]

What is that?

I believe that to be an artist's rendition of some "disciples of Christ" settling a difference of opinion with their enemies.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I believe that to be an artist's rendition of some "disciples of Christ" settling a difference of opinion with their enemies.

Why do you think they are disciples of Christ?

Because they have St. George's cross on their garments?

 

[Davian]

Why do you think they are disciples of Christ?

Because they have St. George's cross on their garments?

From where I am standing, it is all the same. Do you think the St. George's cross associated with a different god than yours?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

From where I am standing, it is all the same.

Sounds like a personal problem. Deficient depth-perception maybe?

Or maybe you are standing in the wrong place?

No...

I think you are standing right where you want to stand.

 

[Davian]

Sounds like a personal problem.

No, as the issue only arises on subjects such things as gods, ghosts, Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, and other things that lack evidence for their existence.

Deficient depth-perception maybe?

How could I see depth to something that you only assert to be there? Such is the failure of presuppositional apologetics - it only works on those that already believe.

Or maybe you are standing in the wrong place?

No...

I think you are standing right where you want to stand.

You are wrong. I do not presuppose that reality will conform to what I want, and it certainly has not done so.

I am standing where the evidence has led me.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

No, as the issue only arises on subjects such things as gods, ghosts, Bigfoot, extraterrestrial aliens visiting Earth, and other things that lack evidence for their existence.

You have an issue with God saying you are a sinner and are in need of a saviour. You have an issue with being accountable to God.

If we were talking about something that was pleasing to you or something you agreed with or something that reinforced the way you have decided to live your life, you would happily agree with me. You would be all to happy to hear me out.

The world hated Jesus. He said that the world hated Him because He testified that its deeds were evil.

If I were telling you that God sanctions and approves of your lifestyle, the things you do, the way you live, the views you hold about yourself, and that he accepts all the "nice" things you do and that He will overlook the bad you have done because He knows you just couldn't help yourself, then you would be all ears.

If I came proclaiming that you are your own god with none to account to except yourself then you would be all ears.

The "evidence" that you have followed led you right to where you started and where you determined you would end before you ever began your journey.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You have an issue with God saying you are a sinner and are in need of a saviour. You have an issue with being accountable to God.

If we were talking about something that was pleasing to you or something you agreed with or something that reinforced the way you have decided to live your life, you would happily agree with me. You would be all to happy to hear me out.

You don't seem to understand that there are people who sincerely do not believe in your theological claims.

The world hated Jesus. He said that the world hated Him because He testified that its deeds were evil.

If I were telling you that God sanctions and approves of your lifestyle, the things you do, the way you live, the views you hold about yourself, and that he accepts all the "nice" things you do and that He will overlook the bad you have done because He knows you just couldn't help yourself, then you would be all ears.

No, I still wouldn't find your theological claims believable. If you think that it is simply a matter of fashioning God's image after one's own, don't you think that we'd already be theists who had done just that?

If I came proclaiming that you are your own god with none to account to except yourself then you would be all ears.

No, I would dismiss that as ridiculous.

The "evidence" that you have followed led you right to where you started and where you determined you would end before you ever began your journey.

This seems highly presumptuous. How do you know that? Many atheists started their journey as Christians.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is using Christ's life as our standard.

Is Christ's life not also the subject of significant theological disagreement?

 

[Davian]

You have an issue with God saying you are a sinner and are in need of a saviour. You have an issue with being accountable to God.

As a mind reader, you are a real Errol Flynn.

If we were talking about something that was pleasing to you or something you agreed with or something that reinforced the way you have decided to live your life, you would happily agree with me. You would be all to happy to hear me out.

Why would I not want for there to be such a thing as an afterlife, and all that it entails? Why would I not want to believe that there is something more to a human's existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

The world hated Jesus. He said that the world hated Him because He testified that its deeds were evil.

Maybe the world just hated apocalyptic preachers. Do you see those guys on the downtown street corners? They are not even popular today.

If I were telling you that God sanctions and approves of your lifestyle, the things you do, the way you live, the views you hold about yourself, and that he accepts all the "nice" things you do and that He will overlook the bad you have done because He knows you just couldn't help yourself, then you would be all ears.

From what I gather, the only "bad" is not believe. A somewhat thin basis for a system of morality, it would seem.

If I came proclaiming that you are your own god with none to account to except yourself then you would be all ears.

Not at all. The idea is preposterous. I am accountable to all of those around me, in varying degrees, in the same way our ancestors had to get along prior to the invention of gods.

The "evidence" that you have followed led you right to where you started and where you determined you would end before you ever began your journey.

Again you are mistaken. You should realize that presupposing what other people think is a recipe for failure. You have no idea of the journey that I have made, the epiphanies that I have had, the things I have learned.

It is the failure of theists such as yourself to show that their god/s are more than characters in books that leads me to conclude that is all they are.