Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hahaha, my man!
That is exactly right! It is self-refuting!
As a criterion of knowledge it is far too restrictive and ultimately self-refuting.
Philosopher of religion Keith Ward has said scientism is philosophically inconsistent or even self-refuting, as the truth of the statements "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically (or logically)" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically.
Ward, Keith, Is Religion Dangerous?
Alston, William P (2003). "Religious language and verificationism". In Moser, Paul K; Copan, Paul. The Rationality of Theism. New York: Routledge. pp. 2634
Please feel free to give detailed examples of the many established scientific theories that are based on assumptions, that can not be verified with empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
Have scientists fudged data, yes. Were they discovered and their science careers ruined, yes. That is the corrective nature of science and the rigor in which it eventually ferrets out bad information. Far too many scientists are doing legit work, to allow bad work to have much of a shelf life. At the end of the day, scientists know, many others are going to be completing experiments to verify whether their work is correct or not, so it tends to blow away the garbage pretty quick. Again, history has proven this to be the case.
Seems like you are hung up on the TOE possibly disproving something. The TOE is the TOE and explains how life evolved and has boatloads of evidence to support what it states and the majority of Christians accept it based on the evidence, so I don't see why the TOE should be an issue, but I would agree, some Christians do see it as a threat.
In regards to Einstein, he actually gave credence to a universal God as being possible and he was quite clear about this. Of course, he did say, be felt belief in a personal God, was childlike behavior.
Who said scientists are cold, hard nosed, unbiased etc..? Scientists are people just like everyone else. With that said, studies have shown, scientists do tend to rely heavily on analytical thinking vs intuitive thinking and this is likely why many gravitated towards science in the first place.
The piece you are missing though, besides the personal side of people doing science, is the scientific method, which is independent of any personal implications of scientists. The method has been imbedded in science for a long time and for good reason, because it works. It is the great equalizer, to ferret out bias that may work it's way into science in the short term. And lets face it, scientists have egos to and do you know what drives many of them? Doing good work, that will pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, because if it doesn't, their reputations tend to take a hit and that is not good for the ego. So in science, there is motivation to be right and to able to prove, with empirical evidence and the scientific method you are right. If you are wrong, there are plenty of willing scientists to come along and show you that you are wrong.
I could be wrong about this, but I have the impression by the content of your posts, you do have a need to discredit science to some degree and it is likely driven by that fact you want to be able to put your faith beliefs, on somewhat equal footing.
Many have tried the same before you.
well according to the quantum theory,there is a small probability that i could suddenly dissolve and rematerialize in another room. this has of course not been seen by any scientist and i ask if you have every seen it
I don't know about all of that. Lee Smolin seems to think that a lot of the directions in physics are 'controlled' by a status quo of secular expectation in the various universities and organizations of the land, a status quo that he believes tends to hinder further scientific progress.
Reference
The Trouble With Physics (2006) - Lee Smolin
all i think he is doing is trying to do is to explain science is not this tool that can help us explain everything in the universe.
Can't say I have, but the principle of quantum theory has held up and strengthened over the last 90 years.
Results of Quantum Theory
Quantum mechanics solved all of the great difficulties that troubled physicists in the early years of the 20th century. It gradually enhanced the understanding of the structure of matter, and it provided a theoretical basis for the understanding of atomic structure (see ATOM AND ATOMIC THEORY) and the phenomenon of spectral lines: Each spectral line corresponds to the energy of a photon transmitted or absorbed when an electron makes a transition from one energy level to another. The understanding of chemical bonding was fundamentally transformed by quantum mechanics and came to be based on Schrödinger's wave equations. New fields in physics emerged-solid-state physics, condensed matter physics, superconductivity, nuclear physics, and elementary particle physics (see PHYSICS)-that all found a consistent basis in quantum mechanics
Would you expect the direction of physics to follow the liking of every physicist?
Does every theologian like the direction of their church, or their religion's philosophies?
I would think that would be a very unrealistic expectation. He may have a point, or maybe he doesn't, but over time, the number of people motivated to make new discoveries, tends to break through any human made barriers. If you do good work and have the evidence to back it up, it will get recognized.
yes electrons are regularly dematerialize and find themselves rematerialized on the other side of walls inside my pc and the molecules of our body would also collapse without this principle. do you not have faith in reason and logic or even the scientific method ?
Not necessarily. There is bureaucracy present in the current scientific establishment which tends to squelch other directions or ideas given by theorists who don't hold to the 'orthodox' science that is promoted so highly. This is what Smolin is saying--and as far as I know, he isn't a Christian, so we can't just write him off because we think he has a religious bias--he doesn't. And we can't just write him off because he is 'just' an iconoclast who works 'within' today's science.
Just something to think about.
Who said scientists are cold, hard nosed, unbiased etc..? Scientists are people just like everyone else. With that said, studies have shown, scientists do tend to rely heavily on analytical thinking vs intuitive thinking and this is likely why many gravitated towards science in the first place.
The piece you are missing though, besides the personal side of people doing science, is the scientific method, which is independent of any personal implications of scientists. The method has been imbedded in science for a long time and for good reason, because it works. It is the great equalizer, to ferret out bias that may work it's way into science in the short term. And lets face it, scientists have egos to and do you know what drives many of them? Doing good work, that will pass the scrutiny of the scientific method, because if it doesn't, their reputations tend to take a hit and that is not good for the ego. So in science, there is motivation to be right and to able to prove, with empirical evidence and the scientific method you are right. If you are wrong, there are plenty of willing scientists to come along and show you that you are wrong.
I could be wrong about this, but I have the impression by the content of your posts, you do have a need to discredit science to some degree and it is likely driven by that fact you want to be able to put your faith beliefs, on somewhat equal footing.
Many have tried the same before you.
Please feel free to give detailed examples of the many established scientific theories that are based on assumptions, that can not be verified with empirical evidence, or the scientific method.
I wonder how quantum theory has been able to hold up then? Is it a giant conspiracy and we are all being duped by corrupt scientists?
Have scientists fudged data, yes. Were they discovered and their science careers ruined, yes. That is the corrective nature of science and the rigor in which it eventually ferrets out bad information. Far too many scientists are doing legit work, to allow bad work to have much of a shelf life. At the end of the day, scientists know, many others are going to be completing experiments to verify whether their work is correct or not, so it tends to blow away the garbage pretty quick. Again, history has proven this to be the case.
Seems like you are hung up on the TOE possibly disproving something. The TOE is the TOE and explains how life evolved and has boatloads of evidence to support what it states and the majority of Christians accept it based on the evidence, so I don't see why the TOE should be an issue, but I would agree, some Christians do see it as a threat.
In regards to Einstein, he actually gave credence to a universal God as being possible and he was quite clear about this. Of course, he did say, be felt belief in a personal God, was childlike behavior.
Do you know anything that doesn't have a level of bureaucracy to it? We are dealing with human beings here, not robots and there certainly could be some barriers to discoveries in other areas that crop up from time to time. As I stated, this tends to take care of itself over time and history has proven this to be the case.
I get the gist of what youre saying. You are saying that the scientific method by virtue of its self-correcting nature, has a minimal potential for abuse by its practitioners.
I do not disagree with you. In fact I stated earlier that this feature of the method was one of its strengths.
You seem, along with Deidre, to be under the impression that I am attempting to discredit science so that I can place it along side of my beliefs.
But science, like in Allen Sandages case, was one of the things that led me to God, not away from Him!
In your mind you envision a scale in which on one side there is contained light faith, and on the other, heavy science. The science is weightier and heavier than the faith and thus, the scale is off balance in favor of the side of science. In your mind you see me as attempting to lighten science so that the disparity between the weight of the two will be rendered less pronounced and become equal.
The problem you are having is that you have a misunderstanding of how the Christian apologist views the nature of faith and its relationship toward science. We do not see the two as opposed, nor do we pit them against each other or place them in their own separate little dish on the scale as if they were totally unrelated, but rather we see them as complimenting each other, science and faith together on one side of the scale in its own little dish, and on the other, atheism, or whatever paradigm you wish to posit. The dish containing science/faith outweighs anything that is placed in the opposite dish.
It would depend on the Christian apologist and what argument they use. I have yet to see an argument from a Christian apologist, that can be supported by science or empirical evidence and the prominent Christian's who are established scientists (like a Francis Collin's) all acknowledge the same.
The arguments I have seen, involve a certain reasoning, with assumptions that can only mean God and nothing else. Also, the arguments utilized, do absolutely nothing to establish the God as the Christian God, which requires a whole different level of argument and reasoning.
Certainly, I can see why Christians latch onto these arguments, to be able to feel more secure in their belief, but their ability to sway believers of other Gods, religions and or non-believers, falls woefully short IMO. Considering Christianity has been shrinking in the world for decades now, is a pretty good clue to how the story lacks credibility as people gain knowledge.
True, many organizations reflect some level of bureaucracy, but not all bureaucracy necessarily squelches new ideas or directions. Science bureaucracy does tend to do this, and not just in connection to something like the Intelligent Design movement; ID does have problems. The squelching Smolin is talking about has been going on for about 30 years, and he is speaking in connection with 'normative' science, like quantum theory, and especially string theory, etc.
Anyway, my basic point is that there are those in power who use their position to maintain a status quo, which is odd for science in general, since according to Beveridge, for instance, science's underlying philosophical premise is that there are no 'singular' authorities (W.I.B Beveridge --The Art of Scientific Thinking (1950)).
Peace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?