How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?

[Cis.jd]

I am unconvinced St Augustine's observations work in application to the modern day issues of the role of science and religion.

But it does. If you want, you can go ahead and do what I've asked you and Joshua. Quote Gen 1:5

I also reject "Sociology" as viable science, my perspective categorises science as only the study of physical things. For me it is a hard science, or it is not science.

Sociology is a viable science, regardless of you wanting to reject based on what you want to categorize. Not all science involves lab study and there are certain things that are only understandable through patterned behavior which is gathered and studied.

 

[SkyWriting]

How come humans have not evolved into a higher species?
Thanks,Daniel

We have.
Thanks!

 

[The Barbarian]

I am unconvinced St Augustine's observations work in application to the modern day issues of the role of science and religion.

St. Augustine was well-informed in the science of his time; by his time both theoretical and applied sciences were established and the methodology of modern science had begun long before he was born, by such scientists are Democritus of Abdera, who used an early form of the scientific method, utilizing experiments. The ancients didn't know as much as we do, but they were no less clever than we are.

I also reject "Sociology" as viable science, my perspective categorises science as only the study of physical things. For me it is a hard science, or it is not science.

One physicist said science was divided into physics and stamp collecting. But that's a rather insular viewpoint; Schrödinger, for example wrote (in What is Life?) that biology was a much harder science than physics.

Not having studied sociology I can't say about its categorization, but obviously anthropology is a science here's how you can tell:

Science:

• Is concerned exclusively with the natural world.
• Is concerned only with explaining the natural world (if it involves using the natural world it's engineering)
• Uses testable ideas
• Relies on evidence
• Leads to more questions as well as answering existing ones

Science often leads to useful knowledge, although that is not the intent of science. It is only to gain knowledge of the natural world.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Science:

• Is concerned exclusively with the natural world.
• Is concerned only with explaining the natural world (if it involves using the natural world it's engineering)
• Uses testable ideas
• Relies on evidence
• Leads to more questions as well as answering existing ones

Science often leads to useful knowledge, although that is not the intent of science. It is only to gain knowledge of the natural world.

I agree with this. Sociology fails on the first two points.

 

[MrsFoundit]

But that's a rather insular viewpoint; Schrödinger, for example wrote (in What is Life?) that biology was a much harder science than physics.

Biology is science, it studies the physical aspects of life forms. I did not mean only physics is science. Biology is in my definition.

 

[The Barbarian]

I agree with this. Sociology fails on the first two points.

I can't think of anything outside of the natural world that is studied by sociologists. I think you're thinking of theology.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I can't think of anything outside of the natural world that is studied by sociologists. I think you're thinking of theology.

No, society does not physically exist, the physical part is a bunch of human beings. If it is animal herd like behaviour, it is human biology. Beyond that you are looking at ideas and concepts. That people associate and why is not physical, it is conceptual. Sociology is a soft science at best, it is in humanities. It is part art with "ology" tagged on. Theology is not science either, "ology" does not make it so.

I did say "hard sciences" only.

 

[Cis.jd]

So in a debate with a non-christian, who is saying that the christian view of Jesus is a later day invented beliefs, or denies any reasonable evidence that resurrection actually happened, how are you going to you defend that? How do you debate against a muslim who claims Jesus didn't really get crucified but it was all just an illusion made by Allah? From the reasoning against sociology, you may as well just admit there is no evidence or intellectual reasoning to defend the faith.

When you watch debates that have Christian theologists vs Atheists or whatever, sociology is a main asset to each of their cases.

 

[MrsFoundit]

So in a debate with a non-christian, who is saying that the christian view of Jesus is a later day invented beliefs, or denies any reasonable evidence that resurrection actually happened, how are you going to you defend that?

What is this non-Christian idea of "reasonable evidence"? Why do I have to agree with a non-Christian idea of "reasonable evidence"? What if I do not?

 

[Cis.jd]

What is this non-Christian idea of "reasonable evidence"? Why do I have to agree with a non-Christian idea of "reasonable evidence"? What if I do not?

It's not a matter of agreeing but you showing the support for your beliefs and how it's not some delusion or brainless influence as others will try to make it look.

 

[MrsFoundit]

It's not a matter of agreeing but you showing the support for your beliefs and how it's not some delusion or brainless influence as others will try to make it look.

It does matter what they call reasonable evidence, and if their grounds for citing delusion are questionable.

 

[Cis.jd]

It does matter what they call reasonable evidence, and if their grounds for citing delusion are questionable.

Exactly, so how do you determine their grounds of whatever criticism is questionable? When someone tells you that that Jesus was just a prophet, or Krishna, or the Archangel Micheal and that your beliefs of him being God is dumb and baseless, what is an effective way to defend that especially if they don't believe in your interpretation of the Bible?

 

[MrsFoundit]

Exactly, so how do you determine their grounds of whatever criticism is questionable?

I ask them to state and justify their grounds. I just did it elsewhere on CF.

 

[Cis.jd]

I ask them to state and justify their grounds. I just did it elsewhere on CF.

Why are you are leaving out the important points involved in the context of my arguments again? So after they state their grounds and now it's your turn on the hot seat, they are asking you to justify your grounds over theirs. How do you exactly do that, especially if they claim their understanding of scripture is correct?

 

[MrsFoundit]

So after they state their grounds

At this point I do not necessarily agree. If we cannot agree terms for reasonable evidence or what can be deemed delusion, we cannot debate. If we can, I debate.

You are making up some scenario in which I do not insist on mutually acceptable terms. I always do insist, I am always happy to explain why they are essential to effective debate.

 

[Cis.jd]

At this point I do not necessarily agree. If we cannot agree terms for reasonable evidence or what can be deemed delusion, we cannot debate. If we can, I debate.

You are making up some scenario in which I do not insist on mutually acceptable terms. I always do insist, I am always happy to explain why they are essential to effective debate.

You are avoiding the context of my arguments repeatedly. If you are just going to respond directly out of the point intentionally all for the sake of feeling correct, then we're done.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You are avoiding the context of my arguments repeatedly.

You need to ensure an agreement to your context, or you need arguments that do not depend on it. I do not believe you have a realistic context.

 

[Cis.jd]

You need to ensure an agreement to your context, or you need arguments that do not depend on it. I do not believe you have a realistic context.

I'm sorry, you have been intentionally avoiding the context so you can respond to it in your own way changing the narrative of it and yet you are repping yourself for that. You shouldn't feel good for having to stoop to such intellectual dishonesty.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I'm sorry, you have been intentionally avoiding the context

No, before I debate the existence of "reasonable evidence" for a thing, I check my debate partner and I agree as to what reasonable evidence is. There is no other context in which a debate that depends on "reasonable evidence" is possible.

Feel free to explain how you think it can be done, I am pointing out I do not.

I cannot explain how I defend my position based on any random definition of reasonable evidence, I do not accept any definition.

 

[Cis.jd]

@MrsFoundit
This is the last time I am responding to you.

This segment of our argument started because of your claims of no science for the Christian faith on Jesus (Virgin brith...). So my reply is showing you an area of Science which is Sociology. Not only are you so driven to make me look wrong that you have stooped to snipping out every point i've made so that you can reply with the context that suites you but you don't realize that you are indirectly calling the supportive academical case for Jesus' divinity as false. What are you doing?