Truth and Science

[AV1611VET]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

 

[yasic]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

None.

Science is the process of learning about our natural world through experimentation and reason.

Science does not claim to present absolute truths, but simply the best knowledge we can attain through the use of the scientific method, given our current mathematical and physical limitations.

I would love to see where 'Truth' is lost in this process.

 

[thaumaturgy]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

Oh my. What is AV's latest word game all about? Let's see. Are we supposed to decree "no truth" in order to be scientists? Well, not really. We just recognize that for our best efforts we may not see absolute truth.

But that's awfully nuanced for a great thinker like AV, so we won't bother him with that.

I'll just go ahead and say "Abandon all truth ye who enter here." Science is intent on destroying all in its path with its evil. The most evil thing Science ever did was demote Pluto down from "planet status" thereby revealing its ultra-evil processes and plan.

We scientists, in service to our drooling blood-master ("the Scientific Method"), denigrated Pluto and all bets were off.

Truth is a lie and lie is truth.

Abandon truth all ye who enter here.

Oh yeah, and we still "discover new things" so that means we are even more evil tomorrow than we are today!

 

[dewaddict84]

None? But the question is kinda mess up to start. I see you put a capital on Truth, so you're probably putting additional meaning to it. Knowing you, I'd guess that you mean "biblical teachings". And while that isn't too well defined, you've got a closet full of dogma and baggage that goes along with your religious beliefs.

So if you want to embrace science, you're going to have to give up:
The flood. You know the one.
The age of the world. It's older.
Portions of all the miracles. It's possible to walk on water, but even Jesus would need floaters or something.
Separation of the mind and the brain.
The vast distinction between humanity and the rest of nature. Yes we're different, but not that different.
Intelligent Design, at least until you get some theories that aren't shot down yet.
The static nature of the world. Tectonic plates have, are, and will be moving around.
The earth centric model of the universe. We quite clearly circle around the sun.

This list isn't exhaustive, but it's all stuff that isn't true, and certainly isn't scientific.

 

[Hespera]

the word is all "superstition", not "truth". no cigar.

 

[ReverendDG]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

you don't have to give up any truth, rather you have to give up mythology that you mistake for truth, when in fact its just wrong.

 

[Hespera]

oh and its not about what you are "expected" to do (by who exactly?)

 

[random325nicaea]

"GOD DID IT --- CASE CLOSED"

i actually ignored the original post. (for obvious reasons, you're not referrign to truth, you're referring to your biblical insta"truth".)

i wanted to focus on this part in your thinking.
you do realize that "goddunnit" explain NOTHING about reality, apart from ascribing some sort of subjective (depending on what mythology you believe in to make you feel special) meaning you ascribe to the existance of a particular thing.

EG:
Q:"what is rain?"
CHR A:"that's when god makes water fall from the sky to water the crops."
Q:"right, but does that even answer what rain is?"
Science A:"rain is the accumulated conensation of watervapor in clouds, that is caused when a cloud comes into contacht with colder air...ect"
"even IF it was god's will, it doesn't require his intervention at all."

do you understand my point?
and do you see how this one statement of yours actually accumulates into your origninal question?

 

[Chesterton]

CHR A:"that's when god makes water fall from the sky to water the crops."
Q:"right, but does that even answer what rain is?"
Science A:"rain is the accumulated conensation of watervapor in clouds, that is caused when a cloud comes into contacht with colder air...ect"

I'd love to hear the "et cetera". What is watervapor? H20. What is H20? What is hydrogen? What is an atom? What is a quark? etc...

Will science tell us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth someday?

 

[AV1611VET]

do you understand my point?
and do you see how this one statement of yours actually accumulates into your origninal question?

Yes --- and I disagree.

Let's take your rain example.

Rain is nothing more than H[sub]2[/sub]O that has accumulated enough mass to overcome the natural forces keeping it suspended in air.

It then falls to earth in the form of hydrometeorids.

Now a question for you:

What is the formula for gravity?

It is Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

Who set those parameters?

Why is the G a constant? Why is it m x m and not m + m? Why is it r[sup]2[/sup] and not r[sup]3[/sup]?

I'll tell you why.

God set the parameters 6100 years ago when He moved around the earth in Genesis 1:2.

So, "Yes, Virginia, God does 'cause' the rain."

 

[Alunyel]

Argh, double post. >_<

 

[Alunyel]

All reasonable, right up to the point where you said "I'll tell you why."

You'd like to think that you've been clued in as to some sort of cosmic reason for everything, and you know why and how the universe is the way it is. It gives you comfort. You'd rather "know" something than not know, wouldn't you? Even if what you "know" is imaginary.

At least science can freely admit to not knowing, which gives it the drive to FIND OUT, rather than just accept the first ancient book that has a few stone-age guesses in it.

Science can also freely admit it's wrong, and correct itself, whereas you constantly seem to always claim the Bible is right, no matter what. What would the world be like if everyone thought that way?

Diabetic girl died after father turned to prayer instead of doctors | World news | guardian.co.uk

Oh, right, people would put God before modern medicine, and we'd basically regress to the Dark Ages. Smeg, people might even start drilling holes in people's heads to release the "evil spirits", again.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How much Truth are we expected to surrender before we can adequately embrace science?

None at all -- you cannot surrender that which you only think you have.

 

[AV1611VET]

You'd like to think that you've been clued in as to some sort of cosmic reason for everything, and you know why and how the universe is the way it is.

Well, when I get it in Writing from the Creator of the universe, I tend to believe it.

When he made a decree for the rain, and a way for the lightning of the thunder:

You, on the other hand, obviously refuse to take God at His [written] Word, therefore you're still looking.

At least science can freely admit to not knowing, which gives it the drive to FIND OUT, rather than just accept the first ancient book that has a few stone-age guesses in it.

Then what's taking you so long to find out?

If you have this 'drive to find out', you don't seem to be taking it too seriously.

 

[pgp_protector]

Well, when I get it in Writing from the Creator of the universe, I tend to believe it.You, on the other hand, obviously refuse to take God at His [written] Word, therefore you're still looking.Then what's taking you so long to find out?

If you have this 'drive to find out', you don't seem to be taking it too seriously.

Psss God didn't Write the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Psss God didn't Write the Bible.

QV please: 16 and 16.

 

[Alunyel]

A lot of books have been written by people, claiming the main character to be the creator of the universe.

Why do you not believe every single one of them?

Why would I take "God at His Written Word", when the total amount of evidence to support "God at His Written Word" ammounts to zero, yet most evidence we have contradicts "God at His Written Word". We're not that guilliable.

It's taking us so long to find out, because we're actually working it out, rather than jus' saying "Oh, I read it in a book, somewhere." and accepting what we read as the unwavering, ultimate truth, just because it said it is.

 

[pgp_protector]

QV please: 16 and 16.

Invalid claim as their isn't any God:xx in the bible.

 

[gaara4158]

Yes --- and I disagree.

Let's take your rain example.

Rain is nothing more than H[sub]2[/sub]O that has accumulated enough mass to overcome the natural forces keeping it suspended in air.

It then falls to earth in the form of hydrometeorids.

Now a question for you:

What is the formula for gravity?

It is Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

Who set those parameters?

Why is the G a constant? Why is it m x m and not m + m? Why is it r[sup]2[/sup] and not r[sup]3[/sup]?

I'll tell you why.

God set the parameters 6100 years ago when He moved around the earth in Genesis 1:2.

So, "Yes, Virginia, God does 'cause' the rain."

Wrong. This is the flaw in presuppositionalist apologetics; it assumes that the laws of nature, logic, and reason must be accounted for... then constructs an "Answer" that doesn't need to be accounted for. This is special pleading, which is invalid.

There's no reason to clutter your epistemology with a god.

 

[AV1611VET]

A lot of books have been written by people, claiming the main character to be the creator of the universe.

We call that diabolical plagiarism.

Why do you not believe every single one of them?

For one thing, they have serious contradictions with each other.

Why would I take "God at His Written Word", when the total amount of evidence to support "God at His Written Word" ammounts to zero, yet most evidence we have contradicts "God at His Written Word".

The answer is in your question.

We're not that guilliable.

"Gullible" is not really the term for it; but I'll abstain from further comment.

It's taking us so long to find out, because we're actually working it out, rather than jus' saying "Oh, I read it in a book, somewhere." and accepting what we read as the unwavering, ultimate truth, just because it said it is.

The Bible just doesn't 'say it' --- It walks Its talk as well.