The Religious Method

[AV1611VET]

I think it is almost an impossibility for American creationists to understand how religion is viewed in the UK.

About as impossible as an atheist trying to understand the creation event, isn't it?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

About as impossible as an atheist trying to understand the creation event, isn't it?

You mean the Big Bang? I think everyone has difficulty grasping that one, so you may be on the right lines, but whereas I would describe one as almost an impossibility I would describe the other as merely tricky.

 

[Greg1234]

A small (~0.00000001 m thick) ball-like nugget of mass; every single object in our day-to-day lives is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms of various types or 'elements'. How different atoms interact gives various objects their properties - it's the explanation for why air is gaseous while wood is solid, for why ice is lighter than water, etc. Though it's useful to think of atoms as discrete units, they are themselves made up of three smaller particles: tiny, light, negatively-charged electrons orbiting a nucleus of heavy, positively-charged protons and heavy, electrically neutral neutrons.

In other words, a piece of animated matter without the spirit or the soul. Why do you think theism would discover or even espouse something like that?

The premise of your OP is wrong btw. It's the theistic method vs the materialistic method (you can check the bible for those).

 

[AV1611VET]

About as impossible as an atheist trying to understand the creation event, isn't it?

You mean the Big Bang?

QED

 

[Mr Strawberry]

QED

Lol. I was trying to be kind to you as the what you are thinking of is very simple to understand and so doesn't fit your comparison.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

In other words, a piece of animated matter without the spirit or the soul. Why do you think theism would discover or even espouse something like that?

The premise of your OP is wrong btw. It's the theistic method vs the materialistic method (you can check the bible for those).

So you agree that the theistic method has never produced any knowledge about the universe? Good to know.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In other words, a piece of animated matter without the spirit or the soul. Why do you think theism would discover or even espouse something like that?

I don't, which is rather the point: religion hasn't given us any verifiable knowledge, be it medicine or science. Its claims are either refutable (inferring scientific knowledge about the Earth from the Bible yields YEC, which is demonstrably false), or are so broad as to be unknowable (such as that age old question, does God exist?).

The premise of your OP is wrong btw. It's the theistic method vs the materialistic method (you can check the bible for those).

Which premise of the OP do you disagree with?

 

[Johnnz]

I don't, which is rather the point: religion hasn't given us any verifiable knowledge, be it medicine or science. Its claims are either refutable (inferring scientific knowledge about the Earth from the Bible yields YEC, which is demonstrably false), or are so broad as to be unknowable (such as that age old question, does God exist?).

Scripture is not a scientific handbook. That I accept and sometimes cringe at some statements made by Christians that suggest it is.

But we know about other things in by various means- historical, experiential, evidential - which we accept as valid. The scientific method is not a 'one size fits all' way of knowing, just the way we learn some things about our cosmos.

John
NZ

 

[seeking Christ]

Well, we can know those things, and we DO know those things. We are told that we can not understand the work of God, and yet we are now being told that we can know that work. So which is it?

Is the concept of "both" really that hard?

 

[seeking Christ]

The main reason I think it has held science back more than it contributed, is that I think religion really has not contributed that much to science.

I was not aware that religion's role was to contribute to science. I always thought religion had a different focus, completely. Elsewhere, someone has mentioned something similar to your sentiment here, with regards to "the church." I think my same statement here pertains to that, equally as well.

Do you disagree?

 

[seeking Christ]

the reintroduced texts were Greek, not Christian.

You're referring to Greek texts, from 200 - 599 A.D? How could they possibly be "Greek, not Christian?"

 

[seeking Christ]

When the immediate response to, "I'm a Buddhist and certain schools of Buddhism don't believe X" is 30 seconds of Google and "no, your wrong. You're lying about being a Buddhist. I, a non-Buddhist and expert on Buddhism by virtue of my google-fu, declare you wrong, deluded, or dishonest", it DOES get a bit tiresome.

Please read this again but insert the word "Christian," and realize this happens everywhere on this site that non-Christians are allowed to post, every day, ad nauseum. It's one of the main reasons I've lurked for so long without signing up to post. The whole phenomenon is nauseating, no matter who does it to whom; and yes, Christians are also guilty of doing this to non-Christians, of every stripe.

Perhaps we can all strive to listen more? Maybe call it a new year's resolution or something

 

[seeking Christ]

Which premise of the OP do you disagree with?

Hi!

I have read these forums for a long time, and have always found you curiously interesting, w/ being sure of what I might say. Be honest: your OP wasn't sincere in the least, was it? Wasn't it a reaction to, or parody of, other (recent) goings on in the forum?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Scripture is not a scientific handbook. That I accept and sometimes cringe at some statements made by Christians that suggest it is.

But we know about other things in by various means- historical, experiential, evidential - which we accept as valid. The scientific method is not a 'one size fits all' way of knowing, just the way we learn some things about our cosmos.

John
NZ

But all those things are included in the scientific method. And beyond religious revelation and systematic observation, what is there?

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not quite right I reckon. Science flourished because of Christian beliefs.

Can you show me any evidence of this? With Galileo, we had science actively suppressed because it conflicted with christian beliefs.

But the overall framework that Christian concepts supply made scientific investigation possible.

How?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

I was not aware that religion's role was to contribute to science. I always thought religion had a different focus, completely. Elsewhere, someone has mentioned something similar to your sentiment here, with regards to "the church." I think my same statement here pertains to that, equally as well.

Do you disagree?

Religion has a different focus. It focuses on defining norms of behaviour.

 

[Loudmouth]

My post 63 gave some background. Ideas have foundations and roots. Christianity provided a major starting point absent from all surrounding cultures, for the development of science.

How so?

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You're referring to Greek texts, from 200 - 599 A.D? How could they possibly be "Greek, not Christian?"

Because I'm NOT referring to Greek texts from that period. I'm referring to 5th through 3rd BCE texts, many preserved by the Islamic Caliphate.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is the concept of "both" really that hard?

It is contradictory.

We are told that christian serves as a foundation for scientific discovery while scriptures are telling us that science will never be able to figure out certain mysteries. It would seem that scriptures contradict what christians are claiming.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Please read this again but insert the word "Christian," and realize this happens everywhere on this site that non-Christians are allowed to post, every day, ad nauseum. It's one of the main reasons I've lurked for so long without signing up to post. The whole phenomenon is nauseating, no matter who does it to whom; and yes, Christians are also guilty of doing this to non-Christians, of every stripe.

Perhaps we can all strive to listen more? Maybe call it a new year's resolution or something

I fail to see the cases you refer to. None of the posters I see here do that EXCEPT the Christians. Do you have some good examples of atheists or non-Christians telling Christians what they believe? I'm not denying it happens, and I agree it's deplorable no matter who does it.