The Religious Method

[TheBear]

... wait, are you serious? You don't believe atoms exist?

This is part of the religious method. All findings must conform to what one already believes. If it doesn't adhere to a preconceived belief, it must be rejected out of hand.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is part of the religious method. All findings must conform to what one already believes. If it doesn't adhere to a preconceived belief, it must be rejected out of hand.

True, but this i the first time I've heard of religious objection to atomic theory!

 

[AV1611VET]

No, nor do I expect the Bible to be a science textbook. But though I don't claim to be able to use the Bible as such, others do.

Then do you really expect an answer to your OP?

 

[AV1611VET]

That was determined using observation, recording, checking etc. Which part of that isn't scientific?

So math is science too? archaeology?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

So math is science too? archaeology?

I've heard maths defined as a lot of things, from a language to an art form. I would describe it as part of the language of science. If you're going to do science, pretty soon you'll need to use maths. And, yes, archeology is a science.

Look, if you are going to study the real world, you are going to have to use science to do it if you want results that are in any way useful. I think this is where your attempts to put science in a box and you've labelled 'take it or leave it' aren't helping your understanding. From the minute you wake up in the morning, every single sensory input you are receiving through your body and your sensory organs is scientific data to be analysed and interpreted by your brain. The scientific method is used to try and remove bias from the way the brain interprets data. It's really as basic as that. Science isn't something you can take or leave, it is the only way you have of getting reliable information about the world around you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then do you really expect an answer to your OP?

No, I don't. But just imagine if I were proven wrong!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So math is science too?

Gauss said it best:

Mathematics is the queen of sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics. She often condescends to render service to astronomy and other natural sciences, but in all relations she is entitled to the first rank.
​

 

[Elendur]

Gauss said it best:

Mathematics is the queen of sciences and number theory is the queen of mathematics. She often condescends to render service to astronomy and other natural sciences, but in all relations she is entitled to the first rank.
​

Whoo! Math!

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

... wait, are you serious? You don't believe atoms exist?

This is part of the religious method. All findings must conform to what one already believes. If it doesn't adhere to a preconceived belief, it must be rejected out of hand.

True, but this i the first time I've heard of religious objection to atomic theory!

I've never heard of a religious objection before, but amazingly I have heard of secular ones.

A paper entitled Einstein and Modern Physics (by N. Martin Gwynne) dedicates an entire appendix to disproving atomic theory while at the same time claiming "This does not mean that I am suggesting that physical substances are not divisible into very small parts."

Another paper called The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (by Dewey B. Larson) argues that while atoms exist, sub-atomic particles do not, which some people claim are proof that nuclear weapons - like the one dropped on Hiroshima - don't exist either.

Just thought I'd share that bit of craziness with you.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've never heard of a religious objection before, but amazingly I have heard of secular ones.

A paper entitled Einstein and Modern Physics (by N. Martin Gwynne) dedicates an entire appendix to disproving atomic theory while at the same time claiming "This does not mean that I am suggesting that physical substances are not divisible into very small parts."

Another paper called The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (by Dewey B. Larson) argues that while atoms exist, sub-atomic particles do not, which some people claim are proof that nuclear weapons - like the one dropped on Hiroshima - don't exist either.

Just thought I'd share that bit of craziness with you.

And just when I thought I'd seen how deep the rabbit hole goes...

(I've seen atoms, with my own equipment!)

(Also, if they don't think the Hiroshima bombing was done by nuclear reactions, how do they explain nuclear power plants?)

 

[TheBear]

True, but this i the first time I've heard of religious objection to atomic theory!

I was being polite to the other poster, actually, trying to get their attention on that, too. I would guess that most religious people accept atomic theory ... well, at least they don't deny that atoms exist nor try to argue against atomic theory.

You know, I just thought of something. God is nowhere to be found in atomic theory. Therefore, since atomic theory doesn't mention God, it should be fought off, just like the theory of evolution, because they're godless and evil. It's all part of the religious method. Hmmm......

 

[Greg1234]

Because it is theists who claim such things.

You brought up an atom.

... wait, are you serious? You don't believe atoms exist?

I reject your view of the world you labeled as an atom, not the observed phenomenon of the visible animated and controlled by the spirit.

I misunderstand what, exactly?

The relationship among materialism, theism, and science.

 

[Greg1234]

You know, I just thought of something. God is nowhere to be found in atomic theory.

Vice versa.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You brought up an atom.

Indeed, as an example of something known to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. I never said I expect theism to be able to conclude things like atomic theory - again, I can only recommend that you reread the OP. What I'm asking is whether the various claims of religiously acquired knowledge, are true. I'm not saying that they are, or that they should be if theism is true, etc.

These claims are made by some of your fellow theists, and it is these claims I'm querying. People really do believe that the Bible has knowledge of scientific and secular things like the hydrological cycle and, yes, atomic theory. The qu'ran is said to contain knowledge of embryology, the Vedas are supposed to contain cosmological knowledge, etc.

Invariably, though, these claims are modern thinkers reinterpreting their personal religious texts to fit modern science. This thread, then, is devoted to see if any such claims really are true - and it seems the answer is a resounding 'no'.

I reject your view of the world you labeled as an atom, not the observed phenomenon of the visible animated and controlled by the spirit.

Do you, or do you not, believe in atoms, as I described in post #44? If not, then what do you think it is we see through technique likes scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy? What is it that makes things like nuclear power plants and nuclear fusion bomb feasible? If atomic theory is incorrect, how was the Manhattan project a success?

Please, try to be explicit. Bandying around phrases like "the visible animated and controlled by the spirit" just stifle conversation. I'm excited to meet someone who genuinely doesn't believe in t existence of atoms.

The relationship among materialism, theism, and science.

Which is?

 

[Greg1234]

Indeed, as an example of something known to be true beyond all reasonable doubt. I never said I expect theism to be able to conclude things like atomic theory - again, I can only recommend that you reread the OP.

I already have. You're assuming that your atoms are valid and that theism should produce something of such a nature. What I'm saying is that I don't share those assumptions.

Do you, or do you not, believe in atoms, as I described in post #44?

Perhaps you are not properly reading my post. I'll use another example. A materialist gave his definition of mind. When referring to mind, that is what he's referring to. My definition of mind is quite different and obviously contradictory to his. He, however, titles his definition as mind. After i label my definition as something like "potential," and assign mind to his definition, I say that I reject the notion of the mind and ask him why he would expect theism to produce something like the mind, or why he assumes that the mind is valid notion. He goes on to say that if I don't believe in the mind how do I explain John working or Susan speaking.

If not, then what do you think it is we see through technique likes scanning tunneling microscopy and atomic force microscopy? What is it that makes things like nuclear power plants and nuclear fusion bomb feasible? If atomic theory is incorrect, how was the Manhattan project a success?

Please, try to be explicit. Bandying around phrases like "the visible animated and controlled by the spirit" just stifle conversation. I'm excited to meet someone who genuinely doesn't believe in t existence of atoms.

Again, it is not established that your description of the phenomenon (called atom) is congruent with the phenomenon we have observed (I'm assuming that you leaped back to the phenomenon of matter in your last sentence).

Which is?

You reap what you sow. Materialsm and theism are the gardening and cultivating, while the activity you call science is only the crops produced by such. Spinning wheels can indicate major progress if you confine progress to the position of the brand name on the wheels. The exaltation of the things in what you call science is heavily dependent on the ignorance of what was potentially attainable, and "scientific progress" and myopia have a symbiotic relationship.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Materialsm and theism are the gardening and cultivating, while the activity you call science is only the crops produced by such.

There ought to be a prize for the most utterly wrongheaded analogy used by a creationist because you'd have a good chance of winning. Analogies and metaphors are interesting because they give a vivid, visual picture of the way the writer thinks about the things he or she is writing about, the drawback being that they can show up quite stunningly the author's woolly thinking, incorrect ideas, and lack of understanding.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I already have. You're assuming that your atoms are valid and that theism should produce something of such a nature. What I'm saying is that I don't share those assumptions.

Again, no, I'm not. Again, I'm not assuming that theism should produce something of such a nature, I'm asking if it has. There are no assumptions on my part. I said exactly this in my previous response (did you even read it? It's right there...): "I never said I expect theism to be able to conclude things like atomic theory".

Perhaps you are not properly reading my post. I'll use another example. A materialist gave his definition of mind. When referring to mind, that is what he's referring to. My definition of mind is quite different and obviously contradictory to his. He, however, titles his definition as mind. After i label my definition as something like "potential," and assign mind to his definition, I say that I reject the notion of the mind and ask him why he would expect theism to produce something like the mind, or why he assumes that the mind is valid notion. He goes on to say that if I don't believe in the mind how do I explain John working or Susan speaking.

Then your entire objection is flawed because you're equivocating; you're substituting your own definition of the word 'mind' or 'atom' and changing your opponents' arguments completely.

Again, it is not established that your description of the phenomenon (called atom) is congruent with the phenomenon we have observed (I'm assuming that you leaped back to the phenomenon of matter in your last sentence).

No, I'm sticking with atoms; 'matter' is something different (in much the same way 'mammal' is different to 'cat').

So. Which phenomena is atomic theory not congurent with?

You reap what you sow. Materialsm and theism are the gardening and cultivating, while the activity you call science is only the crops produced by such. Spinning wheels can indicate major progress if you confine progress to the position of the brand name on the wheels. The exaltation of the things in what you call science is heavily dependent on the ignorance of what was potentially attainable, and "scientific progress" and myopia have a symbiotic relationship.

This makes less than no sense. Do you know why we trust science over religion? Because science works. We have vaccines and the Internet and rovers on Mars and GPS networks, all of which vindicate that scientific progress is real.

Religion, on the other hand, has produced nothing. At best it inspires people to go and do science (which is the real engine of progress), and at it mires us in stagnation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So, almost 200 posts later and no one has a single example of knowledge derived from religious means - no cures for diseases, no maps of distant stars, no solutions to mathematical quandries, no life-saving technologies. I wonder what it means, when an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful creator deity doesn't tell you how to cure disease...

 

[AV1611VET]

So, almost 200 posts later and no one has a single example of knowledge derived from religious means - no cures for diseases, no maps of distant stars, no solutions to mathematical quandries, no life-saving technologies. I wonder what it means, when an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful creator deity doesn't tell you how to cure disease...

It means He doesn't tell you how to cure disease.

Think about it.

If the Bible, in Genesis, would have the formula for nuclear fission, for example, then the Battle of Jericho would have been a nuclear war.

I'm under the impression that the Tower of Babel incident took place because science was advancing too rapidly.

Instead of spoon-feeding us science, God, in His wisdom and foresight, put the advancement of science in our hands.

I think that's an example of gradualism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It means He doesn't tell you how to cure disease.

Think about it.

If the Bible, in Genesis, would have the formula for nuclear fission, for example, then the Battle of Jericho would have been a nuclear war.

I'm under the impression that the Tower of Babel incident took place because science was advancing too rapidly.

Instead of spoon-feeding us science, God, in His wisdom and foresight, put the advancement of science in our hands.

I think that's an example of gradualism.

It's also an example of unspeakable cruelty.