Pathetic Science

[Doveaman]

I think you are missing (ignoring) the real issue here.

The ancients were not denying a natural cause for given effects, they were simply acknowledging that there is more than one cause for given effects, which included a supernatural cause. They placed greater emphasis on that supernatural cause because they recognized that respect is due where respect is due; that there is an uncaused cause of all natural causes:

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” - Isa 45:7.

The ancients were quite comfortable acknowledging that a natural cause and a supernatural cause worked side by side to explain the effects they observed in reality.

Modern scientists, on the other hand, came along in their arrogance and myopic view of reality and decided that the only cause for given effects is a natural cause. This, of course, is nothing more than arrogance inspired by ignorance.

Scientists have boxed themselves into a little, myopic box and their view of reality is only determined by what they observe in their little, myopic box. No other explanation can be accommodated into their little box even if they wanted it to and no matter how much sense the explanation makes. Pathetic, if you ask me.

Based on these observations it can be rightly said that modern scientists are far more ignorant than the ancients and it is an ignorance that is of their own choosing.

Again, pathetic.


P.S.
I can understand science being used to explain the physical facts found in reality, but to conclude that only those facts determine reality is just ... well ... pathetic.

I can also understand a person who concludes they have no reason to believe in anything other than the physical, but to conclude that the physical is all there is and therefore Christians are delusional is just ... well ... pathetic.

 

[Hespera]

I think you are missing (ignoring) the real issue here.

The ancients were not denying a natural cause for given effects, they were simply acknowledging that there is more than one cause for given effects, which included a supernatural cause. They placed greater emphasis on that supernatural cause because they recognized that respect is due where respect is due; that there is an uncaused cause of all natural causes:

“I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.” - Isa 45:7.

The ancients were quite comfortable acknowledging that a natural cause and a supernatural cause worked side by side to explain the effects they observed in reality.

Modern scientists, on the other hand, came along in their arrogance and myopic view of reality and decided that the only cause for given effects is a natural cause. This, of course, is nothing more than arrogance inspired by ignorance.

Scientists have boxed themselves into a little, myopic box and their view of reality is only determined by what they observe in their little, myopic box. No other explanation can be accommodated into their little box even if they wanted it to and no matter how much sense the explanation makes. Pathetic, if you ask me.

Based on these observations it can be rightly said that modern scientists are far more ignorant than the ancients and it is an ignorance that is of their own choosing.

Again, pathetic.


P.S.
I can understand science being used to explain the physical facts found in reality, but to conclude that only those facts determine reality is just ... well ... pathetic.

I can also understand a person who concludes they have no reason to believe in anything other than the physical, but to conclude that the physical is all there is and therefore Christians are delusional is just ... well ... pathetic.

Modern scientists, on the other hand, came along in their arrogance and myopic view of reality and decided that the only cause for given effects is a natural cause. This, of course, is nothing more than arrogance inspired by ignorance.

Scientists have boxed themselves into a little, myopic box and their view of reality is only determined by what they observe in their little, myopic box. No other explanation can be accommodated into their little box even if they wanted it to and no matter how much sense the explanation makes. Pathetic, if you ask me.

ahhh a cute widdle ad hom.

 

[AV1611VET]

The ancients were not denying a natural cause for given effects, they were simply acknowledging that there is more than one cause for given effects, which included a supernatural cause.

This is a good point!

Notice in this verse:

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

... that Jesus first rebuked the wind, then the sea -- not the other way around.

In other words, He knew that these waves were generated by aeolian means; something that the scientists of the time would not have known, thanks to the likes of Aristotle.

 

[Skavau]

P.S.
I can understand science being used to explain the physical facts found in reality, but to conclude that only those facts determine reality is just ... well ... pathetic.

I can also understand a person who concludes they have no reason to believe in anything other than the physical, but to conclude that the physical is all there is and therefore Christians are delusional is just ... well ... pathetic.

Science works only with what can be explained. You'll find all sorts of 'ancients' across the world that believed in all sorts of different supernatural creation stories and attributed all sorts of different supernatural causes to events. When you consider it necessary to invoke things literally described as outside the realm of reality then effectively anything goes. This is why religion is divergent and science is convergent. This is why every new scientific discovery gets us one step closer to understanding reality as it is and why every new branch of religious ideology gets its adherents one step away from understand reality as it is.

It is simply pointless to invoke supernatural causes as reasons for things and indeed if any supernatural cause was identified in anything then it would cease to be supernatural and become part of the explained and understood. They are by definition unknown and as a consequence an exercise in utility.

 

[Michael]

Modern scientists, on the other hand, came along in their arrogance and myopic view of reality and decided that the only cause for given effects is a natural cause. This, of course, is nothing more than arrogance inspired by ignorance.

Hmm. You know I love you man, but.....

You might try looking at it another way IMO. "Some" scientists thought to themselves that what the ancients called 'supernatural' might in fact be a very 'natural' process. IMO that is how pantheism came to exist.

It may very well be that what the ancients called "supernatural" is in fact quite a "natural' part of the universe. Science isn't necessarily at odds with Christianity, although some atheists would like to believe that is the case. Even that type of "faith" that science somehow will replace God turns such a belief system into a "religion" of sorts, one that precludes the possibility that God is the single most "natural" thing in existence.

While I think that it is true that "some" scientists have boxed themselves into a myopic viewpoint (like Lambda-religion theory), I don't think that applies to "all scientists". In fact IMO the adoption of a 'faith' in "dark stuff" and "inflation" was an empirical mistake to begin with from the standpoint of pure empirical physics. It was a betrayal of empirical tenets IMO. I would tend to accuse the mainstream of being "too willing" to believe in 'supernatural' forces of nature like inflation, not for being "unwilling" to entertain the possibility of 'supernatural" forces of nature. I guess it all depends on how you we subjectively look at the universe, eh?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

This is a good point!

Notice in this verse:

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

... that Jesus first rebuked the wind, then the sea -- not the other way around.

In other words, He knew that these waves were generated by aeolian means; something that the scientists of the time would not have known, thanks to the likes of Aristotle.

Notice in this verse:

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

... that Jesus first tells his disciples to pick up serpents, drink poison and lay hands on sick people, not the other way around.

IOW, he knew that if you drink poison and pick up snakes and heal people, it really impresses them and they will give a lot of money to your ministry. True.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Notice in this verse:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Here we have the Jesus rising from the dead and raising up all his zombie buddies. Notice next how they invade Jerusalem. Notice too how they appeared (most likely freaked out) many people. Notice also how there are no extrabiblical accounts of said zombie invasion.

 

[Jazer]

It may very well be that what the ancients called "supernatural" is in fact quite a "natural' part of the universe.

I thought that was the whole point of Theistic Evolution is that God works though Natural means rather then Supernatural. If we have knowledge of how God creates, can we become like God to control His creation?

"Then the LORD God said, "The man has become like one of us, since he knows good and evil."

 

[Delphiki]

I think you are missing (ignoring) the real issue here.

The ancients were not denying a natural cause for given effects, they were simply acknowledging that there is more than one cause for given effects, which included a supernatural cause.

Provide evidence for the supernatural. Anything supernatural.

 

[Jazer]

Provide evidence for the supernatural. Anything supernatural.

That would be Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. I am sure there is lots of stuff on youtube for either one of them.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That would be Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. I am sure there is lots of stuff on youtube for either one of them.

I've read their books. They're not compelling.

 

[Michael]

I thought that was the whole point of Theistic Evolution is that God works though Natural means rather then Supernatural.

That's how I understand it as well.

If we have knowledge of how God creates, can we become like God to control His creation?

Define 'control'. We might be able to control "parts" of his creation (like our forms), but how might we control a "sun", or a galaxy? There's a microscopic/macroscopic scaling problem in terms of "controlling" the whole physical universe IMO.

 

[Delphiki]

That would be Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell. I am sure there is lots of stuff on youtube for either one of them.

Those are testimonies, not evidence. How about some evidence? Some way to consistently test for the supernatural?

Science may be "pathetic" at studying the supernatural, for which there is no logical reason to even think anything supernatural exists -- but religion is pathetic at assessing anything practical. So I'm not worried about someone's opinion of science regarding the supernatural -- the supernatural has never applied to me, nor made itself evident.

 

[AV1611VET]

Notice too how they appeared (most likely freaked out) many people. Notice also how there are no extrabiblical accounts of said zombie invasion.

And why would that be?

Take the nearest graveyard to you, Cal -- if half of its population arose and paraded down the street in front of you, would you even give it a second thought?

If so, you must know what half the population in your local cemetery looks like.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about some evidence? Some way to consistently test for the supernatural?

Right -- and by definition, you guys would call it natural, would you not?

 

[Jro]

Even if we are to say that science is no good at studying the supernatural, how is religion any better?

 

[Hespera]

Even if we are to say that science is no good at studying the supernatural, how is religion any better?

Religion is a total flop at studying the natural, that is for sure.

Doesnt even rise to the level of pathetic.

 

[Freodin]

This is a good point!

Notice in this verse:

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

... that Jesus first rebuked the wind, then the sea -- not the other way around.

In other words, He knew that these waves were generated by aeolian means; something that the scientists of the time would not have known, thanks to the likes of Aristotle.

You know, AV, I would be a lot more impressed by this logic, if I didn't know exactly that, if this verse used the opposite order, you would use it as example of "see, Jesus tells science to take a hike here".

 

[Jro]

Religion is a total flop at studying the natural, that is for sure.

Doesnt even rise to the level of pathetic.

Yeah, that's kind of my point. I mean, if these folks can't even study what's right in front of them, why do we trust their claims about what's supposedly infinitely more difficult to study?

 

[sandwiches]

And why would that be?

Take the nearest graveyard to you, Cal -- if half of its population arose and paraded down the street in front of you, would you even give it a second thought?

If so, you must know what half the population in your local cemetery looks like.

Well, to be fair, I'm not sure most of us would be able to recognize their rotted or dried up faces even if I could see them up close.