William Shatner - Science is Science Fiction

[Mark Quayle]

Aren't the boundaries within which scientific theories differ better defined than with theology? There are various cosmological theories among scientists, but there are fairly rigid boundaries within which they work. Whereas, theologies can be all over the place because so much is not known. The idea that everyone has a theology rings more true than the idea everyone has a science.

I mean, I don't consider what little scientific understanding I have to be my own construction, at all. There is much in my theology that is also not my construction, although some perhaps is, but there are so many ways it could have differed. My science understanding is what little I learned and what I hear the scientific community say, but it's not like I can change sciences. I don't even know what that would mean.

I'm not saying that the two are particularly alike, but only in some ways. There is a useful, (and, I like to think, eye-opening) parallel for those who disrespect science.

My meaning about everybody has a science has to do with the idea that everyone has a worldview, or a notion, of 'the way things work'. This guy's disrespect for science, I think, is more a disrespect for, or a generic discarding of, the scientific community. Goodness knows, flat-earth proponents depend on their science, faulty though it be.

But (OT), to something you say here, that one can discard or change one's theology, but you don't even know what it would mean to say one can change or discard their science: While I know what you mean and agree to a point, religion is also a science, and one's science is often a religion. One does not discard one's religion, any more than one may discard a scientific direction or pursuit —they are constantly upgrading it.

 

[public hermit]

There is a useful, (and, I like to think, eye-opening) parallel for those who disrespect science

I see where you are going, now. I agree, that can be useful.

My meaning about everybody has a science has to do with the idea that everyone has a worldview, or a notion, of 'the way things work'. This guy's disrespect for science, I think, is more a disrespect for, or a generic discarding of, the scientific community. Goodness knows, flat-earth proponents depend on their science, faulty though it be

Apparently, I was taking a much narrower view of science than you intended. Again, I definitely agree everyone has a worldview, if only because our limited knowledge as a species (taking "knowledge" in a strong sense).

While I know what you mean and agree to a point, religion is also a science, and one's science is often a religion. One does not discard one's religion, any more than one may discard a scientific direction or pursuit —they are constantly upgrading it

I think I see what you're saying. I definitely couldn't just up and discard my faith. I've been through enough existential crises for one life lol.

For me, the thing about science that sets it apart is it's universal character. Scientists from different parts of the world, with differing religions or none at all, different languages, different socio-economic backgrounds, differing cultures can all work on the same project at the same time. And, they can all agree on the way forward and the legitimacy of the results. That's astounding universality, but it's not surprising. We share the same world which, thank God, operates the same everywhere we live.

At any rate, I'm also not a fan of the anti-science tendency among Christians. It's gratuitous and counter-productive to the faith in general.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think I see what you're saying. I definitely couldn't just up and discard my faith. I've been through enough existential crises for one life lol.

Haha! I hear ya there, man!

For me, the thing about science that sets it apart is it's universal character. Scientists from different parts of the world, with differing religions or none at all, different languages, different socio-economic backgrounds, differing cultures can all work on the same project at the same time. And, they can all agree on the way forward and the legitimacy of the results. That's astounding universality, but it's not surprising. We share the same world which, thank God, operates the same everywhere we live.

I see what you are saying about the universal character of science. But, if I'm reading Romans 1 right, and indeed the whole atmosphere of Scripture, religion (or at least theism), is also universal.

Also, for what it is worth, note how philosophical proofs of the existence of God are to be logically based, which is also as universal as science is. While believers and non-believers may categorically line up with accepting a 'proof' or not, the logic can be debated on its own terms, universally. I, a Christian, have had some very good, productive and enjoyable discussions, found common notions, (particularly definitions), with both Muslim and Atheist, concerning religion's considerations, (though, granted, they generally involve the nature of God as Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, First Cause.

At any rate, I'm also not a fan of the anti-science tendency among Christians. It's gratuitous and counter-productive to the faith in general.

Agreed completely. But give them credit, it is better to cling to what you know, if it seems endangered by logic you don't know how to dispute, than to change opinions altogether. Antagonism ensues.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not saying that the two are particularly alike, but only in some ways. There is a useful, (and, I like to think, eye-opening) parallel for those who disrespect science.

My meaning about everybody has a science has to do with the idea that everyone has a worldview, or a notion, of 'the way things work'. This guy's disrespect for science, I think, is more a disrespect for, or a generic discarding of, the scientific community. Goodness knows, flat-earth proponents depend on their science, faulty though it be.

But (OT), to something you say here, that one can discard or change one's theology, but you don't even know what it would mean to say one can change or discard their science: While I know what you mean and agree to a point, religion is also a science, and one's science is often a religion. One does not discard one's religion, any more than one may discard a scientific direction or pursuit —they are constantly upgrading it.

You are still using the word science improperly. Science involves the scientific method. It is a problem solving method and ideas like the Flat Earth, creationism, Moon landing deniers, antivaxers, etc. do not follow the scientific method. There is no science to them.

 

[d taylor]

Some of the same things that can be said of theology can also be said of science. Eg:

Everybody has a theology, whether they like theology or not. Everybody has a science, whether they disrespect science or not.

You trust science —we all do. Just not the science community. Or we are insane.

There's nothing wrong with science. Just with the people who do science.

When i speak of science on this forum or in other places where creation is discussed. my reference is always to the science that is opposed to God's creation as given in The Bible.

Science as a vehicle to actually develop working machines, buildings, etc.. that can actually be used, is not the point of my distrust.

As i have said before, i believe religion and science are two of satans greatest tools of deception, he uses in this age.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When i speak of science on this forum or in other places where creation is discussed. my reference is always to the science that is opposed to God's creation as given in The Bible.

Science as a vehicle to actually develop working machines, buildings, etc.. that can actually be used, is not the point of my distrust.

As i have said before, i believe religion and science are two of satans greatest tools of deception, he uses in this age.

Why believe the Bible. Or to be more accurate, why believe your particular version of the Bible? There are countless Christians, very probably a majority, that disagree with you about what the sciences say and the Bible. They do not make the error of reading parts of the Bible literally that should not be read that way.

 

[Fervent]

A frog can be a hoppy amphibian, part of a violin or
some kind of bayonet thingy.
Which definition is suitable for discussion of gun equipment.

It is making things up to pretend the amphibian definition
applies to gun equipment.

[STAFF EDITED]
The definition I used is perfectly appropriate to a discussion of epistemology, which is what we are engaged in when we discuss what "evidence" is. The myopic understanding you seem to have is simply a testament to a lack of ability to truly think critically.

 

[d taylor]

Why believe the Bible. Or to be more accurate, why believe your particular version of the Bible? There are countless Christians, very probably a majority, that disagree with you about what the sciences say and the Bible. They do not make the error of reading parts of the Bible literally that should not be read that way.

I am in the minority of minorities in christianity, i am not a believer just to follow the popular beliefs/thought of christianity.

I am a free grace (soteriology) and flat stationary (creation) believer.

Free grace is already the minority soteriology belief in christianity and being a flat earth for creationism places me even further in the minority.

Close to 90% of christianity have a faith plus soteriology. Something like repentance + faith = salvation, faith + obedience = salvation or repentance + faith + baptism = salvation.

Which many times accompanies a belief that a person can lose their free gift of Eternal Life by actions (sins) they do.

So i do not follow popular beliefs in the world of christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am in the minority of minorities in christianity, i am not a believer just to follow the popular beliefs/thought of christianity.

I am a free grace (soteriology) and flat stationary (creation) believer.

Free grace is already the minority soteriology belief in christianity and being a flat earth for creationism places me even further in the minority.

Close to 90% of christianity have a faith plus soteriology. Something like repentance + faith = salvation, faith + obedience = salvation or repentance + faith + baptism = salvation.

Which many times accompanies a belief that a person can lose their free gift of Eternal Life by actions (sins) they do.

So i do not follow popular beliefs in the world of christianity.

I know. We can all see that. But perhaps you should study epistemology a bit. Mere belief is very often wrong. Knowledge trumps belief. Basing a belief upon the Bible appears to be no different from basing a belief upon the Quran or the Vedas. Why choose any of them if they appear to disagree with reality?

 

[d taylor]

I know. We can all see that. But perhaps you should study epistemology a bit. Mere belief is very often wrong. Knowledge trumps belief. Basing a belief upon the Bible appears to be no different from basing a belief upon the Quran or the Vedas. Why choose any of them if they appear to disagree with reality?

I have no problem with The Bible's creation descriptions. The ones that i can observe. i see no conflict.
Example The Bible states God created two great lights (and stars also) and that is exactly what is see in The raqia (sky) juts as stated in The Bible a sun, moon and stars all created lights, moving over the earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem with The Bible's creation descriptions. The ones that i can observe. i see no conflict.
Example The Bible states God created two great lights (and stars also) and that is exactly what is see in The raqia (sky) juts as stated in The Bible a sun, moon and stars all created lights, moving over the earth.

And this is cherry picking. You site the evidence that agrees with your beliefs but ignore the endless evidence that tells us that your beliefs are wrong.

You can use the scientific method to test your beliefs to see if they are right or not. "God" is a bit of a large concept and cannot be properly tested using the scientific method. Specific versions of "God" may be tested, but by no means all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are still using the word science improperly. Science involves the scientific method. It is a problem solving method and ideas like the Flat Earth, creationism, Moon landing deniers, antivaxers, etc. do not follow the scientific method. There is no science to them.

Science is a much broader word than what you describe. There is science to them. You are talking about structure beyond knowledge and investigation and logical pursuit.

I think you will be surprised some day to find that the scientific community has been doing quite a bit of un-science, by your definition. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but the truth is based on a lot more than what WE can see or think of (that includes believers, just saying...).

 

[Mark Quayle]

When i speak of science on this forum or in other places where creation is discussed. my reference is always to the science that is opposed to God's creation as given in The Bible.

Science as a vehicle to actually develop working machines, buildings, etc.. that can actually be used, is not the point of my distrust.

As i have said before, i believe religion and science are two of satans greatest tools of deception, he uses in this age.

Not sure if you mean then, that the truth and science are always at odds? Like, science can produce useful truths, but will always contradict THE truth?

 

[Bradskii]

I have no problem with The Bible's creation descriptions. The ones that i can observe.

What you personally see and what is factually true are entirely different things. You have started with a belief and have then looked for information to bolster that belief, ignoring anything that contradicts it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is a much broader word than what you describe. There is science to them. You are talking about structure beyond knowledge and investigation and logical pursuit.

I think you will be surprised some day to find that the scientific community has been doing quite a bit of un-science, by your definition. I don't mean that disrespectfully, but the truth is based on a lot more than what WE can see or think of (that includes believers, just saying...).

It is broad, but you are quite incorrect. It follows the scientific method. That is what makes it science. You do not get to redefine terminology simply because your own beliefs fail when tested.

But let's go over the Flat Earth and why it fails. The Flat Earth cannot even explain sunrise and sunset. They cannot explain why the stars rotate one way in the northern hemisphere and the other way in the south. They cannot explain endless things, they may try to create ad hoc models to explain some aspects, but those are all refuted by other observations that they have to make separate models for. Meanwhile one simple model is all that those that accept reality have to make. It works far better than any Flat Earth model. It is how we know that the Flat Earth model is wrong.

I have seen you break the Ninth Commandment by calling others "liars". That is not a good thing to do if one is a Christian. Can you support any of your beliefs properly? Your own personal interpretation of the Bible does not count as supporting your claims. You need to go deeper than that.

 

[Paul4JC]

Major Tom (Coming Home)

“I wish I had better news and more entertainment and jokes to tell you, but I was moved to tears by what I saw,” Shanter said. “And I come back filled with... overwhelmed by sadness and empathy for this beautiful thing we call Earth.”
William Shatner 'overwhelmed by sadness' while discussing ...

 

[angelsaroundme]

A lot of technologies were dreamed up in books and films before they existed in reality. Although we might wonder if they had already invented them and used these mediums to get people used to the idea.

"The first fictional depictions of satellites being launched into orbit are published in Edward Everett Hale’s short story The Brick Moon (1869) and Jules Verne’s The Begum’s Fortune (1879)." - History of satellites – timeline — Science Learning Hub

 

[Paul4JC]

1:20-2:54 "You know uh prior to going up there lying in that chair trying to think of something clever to say when I came out when you know if everything worked and I, I see the little uh blue orb and I was trying to think of something clever to say and then we get up, and when I was there, everything I thought might be clever to say went out the window because the experience. Going at 2500 miles an hour breaking through this little thin blue skin that is surrounds earth that provides us with life we broke through that with an account of one or two at 2500 miles an hour and the skin is 50 miles thick broke through and all of a sudden the blue is down below and the blackness of space; now space is interesting the universe lies there but at that moment in that big window it was only black and ominous and that was death and this was life and everything else just stood still for a moment i was overwhelmed with the experience with it with the sensation of looking at death and looking at life and this you know what's become a a cliche of how we need to take care of the planet but it's so fragile you people say oh it's fragile no no no there's this little tiny blue skin that that is 50 miles wide and we pollute it and it's our it's our means of of living"

 

[Paul4JC]

If you watch the Amazon Prime video there are a couple of contradicting frames showing the earth's horizon from the window. In two of them, the horizon of the earth is completely horizontal. In the last clip of the same view, it shows a curve. So which is the real frame? Such a contradiction.


No way they saw the whole earth, but what he saw saddened him. No stars. I guess those "suns" are not bright enough to shine or they are just not suns. They were at over 330,000 feet, (62.5 miles) compared to ISS's 254 miles. The question has to be asked what could he say? He probably signed a disclosure to what he could and could not say as a condition to go on this flight.

Watch Shatner in Space | Prime Video - Amazon.com

 

[Bradskii]

If you watch the Amazon Prime video there are a couple of contradicting frames showing the earth's horizon from the window. In two of them, the horizon of the earth is completely horizontal. In the last clip of the same view, it shows a curve. So which is the real frame? Such a contradiction.


No way they saw the whole earth, but what he saw saddened him. No stars. I guess those "suns" are not bright enough to shine or they are just not suns. They were at over 330,000 feet, (62.5 miles) compared to ISS's 254 miles. The question has to be asked what could he say? He probably signed a disclosure to what he could and could not say as a condition to go on this flight.

Watch Shatner in Space | Prime Video - Amazon.com

Shatner said he couldn't see stars? What the..? You think they dissapeared somehow?