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
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Faith and its Relation to Science
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="lucaspa" data-source="post: 582337" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p><em>Originally posted by clue At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you&nbsp;would like us to believe.&nbsp; Science&nbsp;is driven by people.&nbsp; Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right</em>? </p><p></p><p>In this case, "objective" means outside of ourselves.&nbsp; Something that we can directly experience through our senses.&nbsp; Something belonging in the objective physical universe.</p><p></p><p>What science does is force objectivity on scientists. It does this several ways.&nbsp; 1. It refuses&nbsp;to listen to subjective evidence.&nbsp; That is, if I say to a fellow scientist "I feel that this is right", the response is "what is your data?"&nbsp; 2. It sets up methods to remove bias from studies.&nbsp; Randomized, prospective, double-blind medical trials are an example of this.&nbsp; The "double-blind" means neither the doctor nor the patient knows if the patient is getting the drug under investigation.&nbsp; That way any lack of objectivity on the part of the doctor can't influence the results.&nbsp; 3. Peer-review.&nbsp; This means your colleagues look at your papers before they are published.&nbsp; Since your colleagues are also your competitors, they have a selfish motive for finding your research to be wrong.&nbsp; Being able to convince them goes a long way to make your results and claims objective.</p><p></p><p><em>Well, I was really referring to myself and not theists in general.&nbsp; A shortened version of my conversion: </em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Is it plausible that there is a god? </em></p><p><em>What are the major religions? </em></p><p><em>What supporting evidence is there for their beliefs?&nbsp; </em></p><p><em>Are&nbsp;they mutually in/exclusive? </em></p><p><em>Which one seems to be the most credible</em>?</p><p></p><p>In which case you seem to be lacking the personal experience of deity that&nbsp;convinces many theists. Thomas Aquinas did what&nbsp;you did and came up with many&nbsp;logical arguments for the existence of deity. After all that effort, he had a personal experience that he claimed made all those efforts trivial and worthless.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me that once you decide there is a deity, then yes, you do have the second step of faith in deciding which version of deity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p></p><p><em>I try to be as literal as possible.&nbsp; There are&nbsp;times when the Bible is obviously being allegorical, and I will process those passages accordingly</em>.</p><p></p><p>How do you decide a passage is allegorical?&nbsp; I submit that you use extrabiblical knowledge in the process.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yet you refuse to use extrabiblical knowledge to decide Genesis 1 or 2 is allegorical. Why?&nbsp; Why the inconsistency?&nbsp;</p><p></p><p><em>How can you make a statement like this?&nbsp; Did ALL Christians investigate this for&nbsp;themselves?&nbsp; Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating?&nbsp; And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth</em>?'&nbsp; </p><p></p><p>Try <em>Genesis and Geology </em>and <em>The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence</em>&nbsp; for all the details.</p><p></p><p>Briefly, not until the 1860s could scientists earn a living as a scientist. They all had day jobs or were independently wealthy.&nbsp; And for most of them, their day job was being a minister.&nbsp; So, the investigation of geology, especially in Britain, was in the hands of ministers who were also geologists.&nbsp; And they unanimously concluded that the earth was <strong>old</strong>. For instance, Rev Adam Sedgwick was the premier English geologist (Darwin learned his geology from him) and served for years as President of the Royal Geology Society. He had always accepted an old earth, but thought that the topmost strata could be due to Noah's Flood.&nbsp; When he retired as President in 1831, he announced that Noah's Flood had been falsified:</p><p>"Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.</p><p></p><p>We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood.&nbsp;&nbsp;... we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths."&nbsp; (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)</p><p></p><p>"Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that the extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation." Biblical Flood, pg 117.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 582337, member: 4882"] [I]Originally posted by clue At the risk of sounding paranoid, I don't think science is as objective as you would like us to believe. Science is driven by people. Are people usually objective, devoid of any leanings left or right[/I]? In this case, "objective" means outside of ourselves. Something that we can directly experience through our senses. Something belonging in the objective physical universe. What science does is force objectivity on scientists. It does this several ways. 1. It refuses to listen to subjective evidence. That is, if I say to a fellow scientist "I feel that this is right", the response is "what is your data?" 2. It sets up methods to remove bias from studies. Randomized, prospective, double-blind medical trials are an example of this. The "double-blind" means neither the doctor nor the patient knows if the patient is getting the drug under investigation. That way any lack of objectivity on the part of the doctor can't influence the results. 3. Peer-review. This means your colleagues look at your papers before they are published. Since your colleagues are also your competitors, they have a selfish motive for finding your research to be wrong. Being able to convince them goes a long way to make your results and claims objective. [I]Well, I was really referring to myself and not theists in general. A shortened version of my conversion: Is it plausible that there is a god? What are the major religions? What supporting evidence is there for their beliefs? Are they mutually in/exclusive? Which one seems to be the most credible[/I]? In which case you seem to be lacking the personal experience of deity that convinces many theists. Thomas Aquinas did what you did and came up with many logical arguments for the existence of deity. After all that effort, he had a personal experience that he claimed made all those efforts trivial and worthless. It seems to me that once you decide there is a deity, then yes, you do have the second step of faith in deciding which version of deity. [I]I try to be as literal as possible. There are times when the Bible is obviously being allegorical, and I will process those passages accordingly[/I]. How do you decide a passage is allegorical? I submit that you use extrabiblical knowledge in the process. Yet you refuse to use extrabiblical knowledge to decide Genesis 1 or 2 is allegorical. Why? Why the inconsistency? [I]How can you make a statement like this? Did ALL Christians investigate this for themselves? Or were they just following what the leader of their denomination was stating? And did the leaders EVEN state 'we believe in an old Earth[/I]?' Try [I]Genesis and Geology [/I]and [I]The Biblical Flood, A Case Study of the Church's Response to Extrabiblical Evidence[/I] for all the details. Briefly, not until the 1860s could scientists earn a living as a scientist. They all had day jobs or were independently wealthy. And for most of them, their day job was being a minister. So, the investigation of geology, especially in Britain, was in the hands of ministers who were also geologists. And they unanimously concluded that the earth was [B]old[/B]. For instance, Rev Adam Sedgwick was the premier English geologist (Darwin learned his geology from him) and served for years as President of the Royal Geology Society. He had always accepted an old earth, but thought that the topmost strata could be due to Noah's Flood. When he retired as President in 1831, he announced that Noah's Flood had been falsified: "Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation. We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. ... we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths." (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143) "Because the Christian naturalists of the era were unafraid of God-given evidence, they recognized that the extrabiblical information provided a splendid opportunity for closer investigation of the biblical text in order to clear up earlier mistakes in interpretation." Biblical Flood, pg 117. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Faith and its Relation to Science
Top
Bottom