Your thoughts on...

[Rana]

the quote in my signature field.

Thanks!

 

[lithium.]

Science doesn't say there isn't a god or anything mystical. It just can't deal with them.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Originally posted by Rana
the quote in my signature field.

Thanks!

It is one of the errors of scientific logic that it denys what it cannot explain, quantify, and label.

It is error to say something does not exist just because we cannot prove it with our limited knowledge and ability. Eventually, when science catches up with faith, these things will be proven. But not without much resistance by the diehard sceptics and "flat-earth" mentality heads. They may deny it, but theirs is a form of fundamentalist faith.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Like a good scientist, he's admitting that science is falliable. It's impossible to "prove" the non-existence of anything, including the mystical.

We cannot "prove" that fairies don't exist, for example, because somebody might discover one tomorrow. There is nothing which absolutely doesn't exist; there are only those things we haven't proven do exist....yet.

 

[Talking Rain]

In my opinion gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces are all fairly 'mystical' when it comes down to it. Doesn't mean they are devine or supernatural in nature, it just means they are not easy for human beings to understand.

TR

[Edited to add: What do you think of my sig quote? ]

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Rana
"to think that science already knows enough to be certain that there are no mystical forces is illogical."
-The Nobel prize Winner, Charles Townes, Chief Inventor of the laser. 

When we were growing up, my dad took everyone of us on a house call to see one of his patients that had Polo. I think his name was Mark. He had the head of a 21 year old adult, and the shriveled up body of a 3 year old. The family had him in a bed in their dinning room, so they could take care of him. He could watch a little TV, or they put a book in front of him and he had a thing in his mouth to change the pages.

The reason my dad took us there, was because they were all very happy people. They laughed a lot and smiled a lot. That really had an impression on him. They did a lot more for my dad, then what he was able to do for them.

Now, when it comes to patients like this, you can either put them in a institution, or you can take care of them at home. My dad did not try to promote or push one or the other. He just helped people decide what was best for them. But he knew, that if you were going to take care of a child like this at home, then you were going to need something "special". He did not know what it was, but he knew some people had it and other did not.

The mystical can be observed, but it can not be explained. It can be seen, but you can not duplicate it in everyone. You know it exists, but you can not really control it. Science is aware of the mystical, but they do not always include it in their formulas or explainations. But they always allow for it.

For example, some people get better and there is no explaination for why they get better. There are some sickness and illness that most people die from, but not everone. Some people do get better and improve. Now a days, they try to explain it away. They will try and say there must have been a human mistake someplace. Perhaps the lab assistant made a mistake and got a false reading on the test or something like that.

Perhaps what Charles Townes is trying to say is, accept that the mystical is a part of life. Work with it, and do not try to explain it away. If a sugar pill can help a third of the people, then do not try to do away with a persons faith. It could be of benifit to them.

 

[Freodin]

There are a lot of things that we cannot explain, and a lot of things were our current explanations may be wrong.

But there are also of whole load of things that don´t need explaining, mystical or otherwise.

To claim a mystical explanation for such things is unreasonable.

 

[ZiSunka]

Science has nothing to say about anything spiritual. It can't be said that science has proved or disproved anything, let alone the existence of God. Science can observe, analyze, quanitify, model, etc, things and processes of the observable universe, but it can't say anything at all about the unobservable things of the universe.

Therefore, science can produce only agnostics, people who have to admit that they don't know whether or not there is a God. For a person to say they are an atheist because they believe in science is perfect nonsense.

 

[seebs]

Science can produce theists, it's just that theism is not a scientific result. However, most scientists have opinions which are not the result of science; we *do* have other forms of experience, after all.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by didaskalos
It is one of the errors of scientific logic that it denys what it cannot explain, quantify, and label.

It is an equal error of mystical thinking to accept as true that for which it can provide no emprical evidence.

It is error to say something does not exist just because we cannot prove it with our limited knowledge and ability.

Really? I claim that the Invisible Pink Unicorn really exists, that She loves us very much, and that She wants all of us to join Her in the Strawberry Fields when we die.

Because I cannot prove She exists with our limited knowledge and ability, is it an error for you to deny her existence?

Eventually, when science catches up with faith, these things will be proven.

Unsubstantiated assertion. If history is any guide, then in fact the opposite will be true.

But not without much resistance by the diehard sceptics and "flat-earth" mentality heads.

What's wrong with that? The skeptics refuse to accept claims without emprical proof. Seems smart to me.

They may deny it, but theirs is a form of fundamentalist faith.

Hey, two can play at that game:

"You may deny it, but your religion is a myth."

 

[judy]

Originally posted by Rana
the quote in my signature field.

Thanks!

 

Cool!

 

I'm thinking about using this in MY signature field:

"I'm not mad at God, I'm mad at Santa for never bringing me what I wanted for Christmas, and at Leprechauns for not leaving any pots of gold at the ends of rainbows."

 

So, whattaya think?

 

 

[lithium.]

nice

 

[judy]

Originally posted by seesaw
nice

 

Oh no, you shouldn't have said that.....now I'll have to actually add it to my profile!

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Freodin
There are a lot of things that we cannot explain,

You seem to miss the point. This is about parents that have a child that sick and they have to decide if they want to keep that child at home, or put that child in a institution. Often they turn to the doctor for help in making a decision like this. The doctor has to help them decide if they are up to the task or not. If they have what it takes. This is rubber meets the road real life decison making. What sort of person has what it takes, to keep a child like this at home, and what sort of person does not have what it takes and would be better off to put that child in a institution.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by judy
[B
I'm thinking about using this in MY signature field:

"I'm not mad at God, I'm mad at Santa for never bringing me what I wanted for Christmas, and at Leprechauns for not leaving any pots of gold at the ends of rainbows."
So, whattaya think?

[/B]

It makes about as much sense as anything else you've had to say about God.

If this is what you really believe, I congradulate you on your honesty, no matter how childish. If you're just posting this to poke fun at Believers, well, it shows how really ignorant you are about us.

 

[Freodin]

Originally posted by JohnR7
You seem to miss the point. This is about parents that have a child that sick and they have to decide if they want to keep that child at home, or put that child in a institution. Often they turn to the doctor for help in making a decision like this. The doctor has to help them decide if they are up to the task or not. If they have what it takes. This is rubber meets the road real life decison making. What sort of person has what it takes, to keep a child like this at home, and what sort of person does not have what it takes and would be better off to put that child in a institution.

Yes, so what? I have lived all my life in such a situation, and I know what the difficulties are.

What has that to do with "mystical".

I see that as an application of Ockams Razor: if it does not make any difference when you ignore it, you can ignore it.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by didaskalos
It is one of the errors of scientific logic that it denys what it cannot explain, quantify, and label.

It is error to say something does not exist just because we cannot prove it with our limited knowledge and ability.

Science works by falsification.  That is, it shows entities to be false.  What can't be shown false science must consider possible.

So far, no one has been able to falsify the existence of deity.

The importance and role of falsification in science is shown by the following"

"1.  Tachyons:  can we rule them out.

The special theory of relativity has been tested to unprecedented accuracy, and appears unassailable.  Yet tachyons are a problem.  Though they are allowed by the theory, they bring with them all sorts of unpalatable properties.  Physicists would like to rule them out once and for all, but lack a convincing nonexistence proof.  Until they construct one, we cannot be sure that a tachyon won't sudently be discovered.

3.  Time travel:  just a fanstasy?

The investigation of exotic spacetimes that seem to permit travel into the past will remain an active field of research.  So far, the loophole in the known laws of physics that permits time travel is very small indeed.  Realistic time-travel scenarios are not known at the time of writing.  But as with tachyons, in the absence of a no-go proof, the possibility has to stay on the agenda.  So long as it does, paradoxes will haunt us.''  Paul Davies, About Time, 1994.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by judy
  I'm thinking about using this in MY signature field:

"I'm not mad at God, I'm mad at Santa for never bringing me what I wanted for Christmas, and at Leprechauns for not leaving any pots of gold at the ends of rainbows." 

 So, whattaya think?  

The difference is that you can test and falsify that Santa brings presents or that there are pots of gold at the end of rainbows.  But I don't know of anyone that can test and falsify the existence of deity.  When someone does, let me know.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Rana
the quote in my signature field.

Thanks!

Standard methodological materialism.  Anyone who states that science has shown the supernatural to not exist is making a statement of faith.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by lambslove
It can't be said that science has proved or disproved anything, let alone the existence of God. ... Therefore, science can produce only agnostics, people who have to admit that they don't know whether or not there is a God. For a person to say they are an atheist because they believe in science is perfect nonsense.

First, science has disproved a lot of things. It is the negative statements in science that are the certain ones. The earth is not flat.  Any doubt that a flat earth has been disproved? The earth is not the center of the solar system.  Again, any doubt that geocentrism has been disproved?  Proteins are not the molecules encoding inheritance (yes, that was a theory around 1900).  Any doubt that is wrong?

What science hasn't been able to do is disprove the existence of "God".  Maybe it is impossible for science to do so.  But I don't like trying to predict the future and am uncomfortable in making a universal claim that science can never disprove the existence of deity. 

Yes, science is agnostic. Science doesn't have to produce agnostics, but that's because agnostics are persons and not science itself.  Science produces more theists than atheists, but it has and can produce atheists also.

I tend to agree with your last sentence, but probably not for the reasons you said it.    For a person to claim they are an atheist because they believe in science means that they either 1) don't understand science or 2) are misrepresenting science.