Denial of science

[DeepThinker]

You're right. But that was not my point, my point was



LLH

Yeah, well your definatly right there.

 

[DeepThinker]

Yeah, well your definatly right there.

Although people can condition their minds to not feeling pain, (hot coal walking etc) so mabey a cirtain amount of belife does mean you can ignore what your senses tell you...

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Although people can condition their minds to not feeling pain, (hot coal walking etc) so mabey a cirtain amount of belife does mean you can ignore what your senses tell you...

Well you can condition yourself to a small extinct.

I would like to add that walking on hot coals is a parlor trick, just like eating glass and lying on a bed of nails. It is not really based on resisting pain.

LLH

 

[DeepThinker]

Well you can condition yourself to a small extinct.

I would like to add that walking on hot coals is a parlor trick, just like eating glass and lying on a bed of nails. It is not really based on resisting pain.

LLH

Your right its not based on resisting pain it relies on beliving that the pain does not exist, it is belife that they condition.

Also it may be considered a trick now, but those who first did it, were not looking for regognition from their piers as people do today, it was belife. I do not know what the belife was of im not to boned up on it, but I know that in places this was considered a right of passage, that only true belivers could transverse the coals.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Your right its not based on resisting pain it relies on beliving that the pain does not exist, it is belife that they condition.

No it has nothing to do with pain or belief. It is a trick. It has to do with thermodynamics. If done properly enough energy (heat) will not transfer to your feet to produce burns. While it certainly would take some “intestinal fortitude” to step on hot coals, it is no different that jumping out of an airplane with a parachute. The parachute will (hopefully) save you from the fall, not some silly belief. It is simple physics.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/firexplain.htm
http://skepdic.com/firewalk.html
LLH

 

[DeepThinker]

No it has nothing to do with pain or belief. It is a trick. It has to do with thermodynamics. If done properly enough energy (heat) will not transfer to your feet to produce burns. While it certainly would take some “intestinal fortitude” to step on hot coals, it is no different that jumping out of an airplane with a parachute. The parachute will (hopefully) save you from the fall, not some silly belief. It is simple physics.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/firexplain.htm

LLH

Ah well I said that I did not know all about it, though I cannot remeber the purpose of the point...

 

[Beoga]

How is it possible to totally deny what science figures out? I hear that there are many blievers out there that totally refuses the world of science and instead turnes to the book.

I'll give my response and then I'll bow out.
My first principle is that The Bible is the Word of God. This is my epistemological foundation, my highest authority. This means that I believe the Bible first and foremost above science. If these two things contradict, I belief the Scriptures.
Now, I am a Christian that is starting to deny that science can furnish man with any sort of knowledge. These mounds of "evidence," is arbitrary. Who decides what evidence is enough or how many tests are enough? Popular opinion among scientists? That is fallacious. Also, science has changed, how can I know what is scientifically "true" know will be scientifically true 10 years from? I don't/can't.
Also, I believe that science is constantly asserting the consequent (If gravity is true, this object will fall at such and such a rate. This object does fall at such and such a rate, therefore gravity is true). Which for me is another problem, no matter how many tests are done, we can't know if the next test will result in the same findings. It seems to use inductive reasoning to create a universal, which is fallacious.
Finally, I am starting to deny that empiricism, which is the epistemological foundation of science, is fallacious. I think all it does is create skepticism.
I would encourage you to read articles at:
www.trinityfoundation.org

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Finally, I am starting to deny that empiricism, which is the epistemological foundation of science, is fallacious. I think all it does is create skepticism.
I would encourage you to read articles at:
www.trinityfoundation.org

Well I've spent some time there as you suggested. So far all I've seen is some condemnation of some unnamed intellectuals and some good old fashion Catholic bashing:

From (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=43)

In theory, the Roman Catholic idea of justification teaches men to rely on God’s work in them for their justification and salvation. In practice, it leads them to depend on their own works, for the works are the evidence of God’s work in them. That explains why the most devoted followers of the Roman Church have always been the most preoccupied with religious experience: long and repetitive prayers, life in monasteries and convents, pilgrimages to "holy" places, miracles, veneration of relics, Mary, and the saints, good works, and so forth. All these things cannot save. The person who trusts in them will die in his sins.

I don't think many people would support this one either (especially the founding fathers):

From (http://www.trinitylectures.org/product_info.php?cPath=28&products_id=48)

If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable--then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights.

Attempts to base a theory of government on secular axioms result in either anarchy or totalitarianism. Only Christianity, which grounds the legitimate powers of government in the delegation of power by God, avoids the twin evils of anarchy and totalitarianism.

I tried to read more that appears to be about the limit of their free content. And I am certainly not going to pay for this garbage.

LLH

 

[Beoga]

Well I've spent some time there as you suggested. So far all I've seen is some condemnation of some unnamed intellectuals and some good old fashion Catholic bashing:

So saying a group is wrong is bashing? Robbins can be harsh (I would encourage you to read articles by Gordon Clark in the *free* review archives section), but that is far from "bashing."
Also, the attitude of someone does not change the content of what they say.

I don't think many people would support this one either (especially the founding fathers):

Are you trying to appeal to popular opinion to try and establish the untruthfulness of these statements/beliefs?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Are you trying to appeal to popular opinion to try and establish the untruthfulness of these statements/beliefs?

No I'm trying to appeal to popular opinion to try and establish the silliness of these statements/beliefs.

LLH

 

[Beoga]

No I'm trying to appeal to popular opinion to try and establish the silliness of these statements/beliefs.

LLH

Whether or not popular opinion (depending on whose opinion of popular opinion) finds these beliefs silly, does not change the truthfullness or untruthfulness of these statements.

 

[tcampen]

I'll give my response and then I'll bow out.
My first principle is that The Bible is the Word of God. This is my epistemological foundation, my highest authority. This means that I believe the Bible first and foremost above science. If these two things contradict, I belief the Scriptures.
Now, I am a Christian that is starting to deny that science can furnish man with any sort of knowledge. These mounds of "evidence," is arbitrary. Who decides what evidence is enough or how many tests are enough? Popular opinion among scientists? That is fallacious. Also, science has changed, how can I know what is scientifically "true" know will be scientifically true 10 years from? I don't/can't.
Also, I believe that science is constantly asserting the consequent (If gravity is true, this object will fall at such and such a rate. This object does fall at such and such a rate, therefore gravity is true). Which for me is another problem, no matter how many tests are done, we can't know if the next test will result in the same findings. It seems to use inductive reasoning to create a universal, which is fallacious.
Finally, I am starting to deny that empiricism, which is the epistemological foundation of science, is fallacious. I think all it does is create skepticism.
I would encourage you to read articles at:
www.trinityfoundation.org

The point of science is that you can test the conclusions of someone else to determine the veracity of their findings. It's not based on a popularity contest, but on objective data. Now, most of us don't bother to do these tests, and we rely on other scientists to do this, but this system works pretty darn well. The computer you're typing on to post your messages and replies in this Forum is a testiment to countless affirmations of the scientific method - just as everytime you take any medication, watch a television broadcast, eat different foods, and countless other activities we take for granted every day.

Science is not a shot in the dark, filled with whimsical speculation. It is based on testable, repeatable, predictable and falsifiable concepts. It does not start with a presupposition something is true, then stick with that consclusion nomatter what. It is based on independent verification - which you could do yourself if you had the inclination.

This is fundamentally different than religious principles, which are founded in faith. While adhearance to the Bible is fine, one cannot reasonably deny the incredibly varied interpretation it has among its followers. In contrast, there is little debate on the chemical make-up of salt, or how it reacts to certain other chemical compounds.

That is not to say science and religion cannot coexist. Most scientists are people of faith. The difference is this: Science tells us why it rains...Religion tells us why it had to rain on my wedding day. Or put another, more direct way, science what "life" is, while religion what the "meaning of life" is.

See what I mean?

 

[Merlin]

The difference is this: Science tells us why it rains...Religion tells us why it had to rain on my wedding day. Or put another, more direct way, science what "life" is, while religion what the "meaning of life" is.

See what I mean?

Then again,
Science fails to tell us why it stopped raining when I prayed.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Whether or not popular opinion (depending on whose opinion of popular opinion) finds these beliefs silly, does not change the truthfullness or untruthfulness of these statements.

Yes, poplular opinion is meaningless when it comes to the truthfulness of facts. The only problem with your argement is these are not facts, they are themselves opinions:

If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable--then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights.

Attempts to base a theory of government on secular axioms result in either anarchy or totalitarianism. Only Christianity, which grounds the legitimate powers of government in the delegation of power by God, avoids the twin evils of anarchy and totalitarianism.

LLH