Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Does your personal atheist stance have anything to do with your scientific perspective?
    Indeed it does.

    Hence, while a theist would view scientific theories as our understanding of how God does things, I view scientific theories as simply pointing to how things happen without any reference to the supernatural (which may or may not exist).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rwatts View Post
      Indeed it does.

      Hence, while a theist would view scientific theories as our understanding of how God does things, I view scientific theories as simply pointing to how things happen without any reference to the supernatural (which may or may not exist).
      I would think that most scientists who are theists would 'do' science in the same way as atheist scientists, and their scientific 'conclusions' or findings would in no way involve or impinge upon their theistic beliefs or vice versa. Is that your understanding also?

      Would you say that your scientific methods, hypotheses, theories, findings, conclusions, etc, have influenced you to adopt an atheist philosophy or have contributed toward confirming your atheist worldview?
      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        Guy Consolmagno, Coordinator for Public Relations at the Vatican Observatory, told a news outlet last week that the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account is ‘almost blasphemous theology. It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.'

        The papal astronomer said he rejects the literal interpretation of Genesis and instead finds truth through “science.”

        “Science is a way of getting close to creation, to really getting intimate with creation, and it’s a way of getting intimate with the creator,” he claimed. “It’s an act of worship.”

        “The search for literalism, the search for absolute truth, isn’t what science is about and it’s not what religion is about.”

        http://christiannews.net/2014/10/20/...t-blasphemous/
        The geneticist Francis Collins, who was the former head of the Human Genome Project and is currently director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), stated that:
        "I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion. When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, ‘Wow, only God knew before.’ It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."

        Similarly, Charles Hard Townes, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1964 for his work research in quantum electronics leading to the development of the maser and laser, said the following about his work:
        "I feel the presence of God. I feel it in my own life as a spirit that is somehow with me all the time."

        These are but two examples of top level scientists who feel that science has enhanced their religious belief.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
          I would think that most scientists who are theists would 'do' science in the same way as atheist scientists, and their scientific 'conclusions' or findings would in no way involve or impinge upon their theistic beliefs or vice versa. Is that your understanding also?
          Essentially yes, I agree.

          Originally posted by robrecht
          Would you say that your scientific methods, hypotheses, theories, findings, conclusions, etc, have influenced you to adopt an atheist philosophy or have contributed toward confirming your atheist worldview?
          Not at all.

          I think I reached a point where I seriously began to question by theistic upbringing. My parents were devout and we were always very active in the church. What finally brought my faith undone was meeting folk whom I was taught by some peers, to keep away from because they were heretics and on their way to hell. On meeting them, I found that they thought exactly the same thing about me. We both used the Bible to try and demonstrate our case to each other.

          That night, following the meeting, my faith really began to drop away.

          So science had very little to do with it. And I don't feel that it maintains my atheism either. I think the God/no-God question is something well outside of science. If I were a theist, I'd interpret science as telling me something about God. I am an atheist, therefore think it tells me nothing about God.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            Yet another RCC M-O-R-O-N - the RCC seems to have an endless supply!

            The statement by this guy, Guy, is as sophomoric as it is misleading.
            Unworthy of comment but it WILL do great harm since so many
            people regard as "Gospel" anything spoken by the "Holy RCC".

            Oh well ...

            Jorge
            They do an awful lot of good in our society, these RCC "morons". Here is a typical example:-

            HyVong - Journey towards Hope

            Then there are always the kind of things religious bigots are into Jorge:-

            My story - Alexandra

            Perhaps you need to rethink where the morons really are.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by rwatts View Post
              Essentially yes, I agree.

              Not at all.

              I think I reached a point where I seriously began to question by theistic upbringing. My parents were devout and we were always very active in the church. What finally brought my faith undone was meeting folk whom I was taught by some peers, to keep away from because they were heretics and on their way to hell. On meeting them, I found that they thought exactly the same thing about me. We both used the Bible to try and demonstrate our case to each other.

              That night, following the meeting, my faith really began to drop away.

              So science had very little to do with it. And I don't feel that it maintains my atheism either. I think the God/no-God question is something well outside of science. If I were a theist, I'd interpret science as telling me something about God. I am an atheist, therefore think it tells me nothing about God.
              Very interesting, thank you. If you do not mind my asking, what were these two groups of faithful? I presume both groups were fundamentalists of some sort?
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                rwatts --

                How do barbecued babies taste? What kind of sauce?

                K54

                P.S. And we ALL know that The Pope is The Antichrist.

                Duh...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Very interesting, thank you. If you do not mind my asking, what were these two groups of faithful? I presume both groups were fundamentalists of some sort?
                  I don't mind at all.

                  I was raised a Methodist. The other group was Christadelphian. (They were really beaut folk. We had our argument while enjoying a nice supper at one of their halls(?). It was a friendly but serious discussion, if you know what I mean. And it set in motion the beginning of the end of my faith.)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                    Math is based on axioms, statements that can't be proved. Math systems are self-contained and are only occasionally applicable to nature.
                    A while back, there was an article in Scientific American, where several scientists and mathematicians discussed what they considered the surprising congruence between math and nature, and how frequently, almost invariably, mathematical models corresponded to natural systems. And how often such models proved remarkably predictive of future discoveries in nature. They marveled that nature either rests on math, or that the two are connected at the hip. I think this article came out shortly after the Higgs Boson was discovered, as predicted by a mathematical model that predicted most bosons - not to mention antiparticles neutrinos, and more.

                    And notice also that chaos theory, which is basically pure math developed largely at the Santa Fe Institute, has been invaluable in predicting chaotic systems like weather.

                    (We now return you to the truism that that theorems are not truths in the conventional sense.)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      rwatts --

                      How do barbecued babies taste?
                      Like chicken, provided their bottoms have been cleaned.

                      Originally posted by K54
                      What kind of sauce?
                      Mustard.



                      Originally posted by K54
                      P.S. And we ALL know that The Pope is The Antichrist.
                      That was before Gorbachev I believe.



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by rwatts View Post
                        I don't mind at all.

                        I was raised a Methodist. The other group was Christadelphian. (They were really beaut folk. We had our argument while enjoying a nice supper at one of their halls(?). It was a friendly but serious discussion, if you know what I mean. And it set in motion the beginning of the end of my faith.)
                        I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist, but I don't really know that much about them. As a kid, my best friend was Protestant, but I had no idea what denomination, and I don't think they went to church that much. We were very Catholic, but we never talked about groups or individuals going to hell. If we ever thought about it at all, we just figured that was God's business and not our concern. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that I met my first fundamentalist and he just seemed like a really strange guy, all upset about everything and wanting to argue about everything all the time.
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Very interesting, thank you. If you do not mind my asking, what were these two groups of faithful? I presume both groups were fundamentalists of some sort?
                          Interesting question. my experience involved my family in the Roman Church, and the Baptists in the small burg, Derwood, near our farm where my friends on the neighboring farms attended. Actually, this did not effect my faith. That came later in Central and South America.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                            I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist,....
                            Back then the church I went to was small, and most of the congregation were relatives with views ranging from the fundamentalist, through to conservative to liberal.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              I did not think Methodists, as a general rule of thumb, we that fundamentalist, but I don't really know that much about them. As a kid, my best friend was Protestant, but I had no idea what denomination, and I don't think they went to church that much. We were very Catholic, but we never talked about groups or individuals going to hell. If we ever thought about it at all, we just figured that was God's business and not our concern. It wasn't until I was a senior in high school that I met my first fundamentalist and he just seemed like a really strange guy, all upset about everything and wanting to argue about everything all the time.
                              Here is where rural small town churches often differ from the more urban congregations of some denominations such as Methodist, Episcopalian, and Presbiterian faiths. Rural churches tend to very conservative. In North Carolina the Methodist Church that had the Boy Scout Troop my son became an Eagle Scout in refused to allow him to have his ceremony at the church, and arranged an alternate location, because he was a Baha'i.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                                Most truths are relative:

                                She's pretty.
                                He's smart.
                                They're a good couple.
                                I love my job.

                                And the rest are relatively useless.
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                Useless in what way, exactly? Technologically useless, I'd probably go along with that for the most part. But belief in absolute truth(s) is for some people very inspiring, eg, of good moral character and behavior. Note, I am saying it is necessary for such.
                                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                                I agree, but I think lao tzu is only talking about absolute truth(s) in general, not the Bible specifically.
                                Like relative right and wrong, relative truths are far more generally available. It's always easier to find an action that is relatively better or a statement that is relatively more true than to find an optimal behavior or absolute truth.

                                Approximation is ubiquitous.

                                As ever, Jesse

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X