Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 2:08 PM
337 online now:
caffeine, jar, Joe T, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (8 members, 329 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,025 Year: 28,631/21,208 Month: 697/1,847 Week: 72/475 Day: 19/53 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234567
8
Author Topic:   Science proves that the tomb of Jesus (Christ ?)and James the Just have been found.
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 106 of 110 (824860)
12-04-2017 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Aussie
11-22-2017 4:14 PM


Re: Conclusion
What I said was in no way an insult. I have read your posts with great interest for years!

Thanks, I don't feel insulted.

But in the religious arena you DO believe what you want, what you want to be true.

Okay, for some things yes. Some things, no.

I don't believe in God because I want to. I believe in God because He responded and I know something is there.

I don't really know what it was, exactly, so as I try to deduce finer details I do start getting into preference and choice.

But at the root it isn't a choice, it's more of a conclusion.

Every religious person in the modern world is believing what they want, with zero evidence.

I can't agree to that.

Faith is a fancy sounding way of saying "I believe in vastly improbable things without a good reason to."

I dunno - if the believer didn't think they had a good reason to believe it then I don't see why they would.

There has to be some reason for believing particular things - otherwise peoples' beliefs would be unrecognizable chaos - and whether or not that reason is good enough is their call and not your's.

What isn't good enough for you may be good enough for another.

That's why religions have profoundly mutually exclusive articles of faith; because there is no way to validate the veracity of their claims.

That's true.

Religions are simply "People believing whatever they want."

I see what you're saying - maybe it's just a little too nuanced for me.

There's a lot of believing what you want in religion, but it's not just simply that.

And the religious beliefs on Earth are almost as vast as the human imagination. That should be a giant, flashing warning sign.

The data is a noisy mess and it's hard to make sense out of it


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Aussie, posted 11-22-2017 4:14 PM Aussie has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 107 of 110 (824870)
12-04-2017 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by ringo
12-04-2017 10:47 AM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
ringo writes:

Your own quote doesn't show that it's wrong.


As Barbour shows, the 17th century English scientists were much MORE religious than their society. Thus they were not simply a reflection of their society. Newton, for example, wrote more on the Bible than on science, even though his scientific output was voluminous.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by ringo, posted 12-04-2017 10:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 12-05-2017 10:58 AM kbertsche has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 108 of 110 (824922)
12-05-2017 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by kbertsche
12-04-2017 1:13 PM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:

As Barbour shows, the 17th century English scientists were much MORE religious than their society.


Your quote doesn't say anything of the kind. It says that a disproportionate number of scientists were Puritans. The others were also, presumably, professing Christians. No doubt the Arab scientists of the time were professing Muslims and the Chinese scientists of the time were professing Taoists, Buddhists, etc. They were all a product of their cultures.

How would you measure "how religious" they were anyway?

Newton writes:

Newton, for example....


Newton, for example, wasn't a Puritan, was he? So your quote doesn't apply to him. Religiously, he was a bit of a nut, so he isn't much of an example.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by kbertsche, posted 12-04-2017 1:13 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 12-05-2017 12:58 PM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1424
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 109 of 110 (824939)
12-05-2017 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ringo
12-05-2017 10:58 AM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
ringo writes:


Your quote doesn't say anything of the kind. It says that a disproportionate number of scientists were Puritans.


It says that and more. Here’s what Barbour wrote:

“Seven out of ten members of the Royal Society were Puritans--a ratio far out of proportion to the population as a whole; most of the virtuosi were active churchmen, and many of the clergy encouraged or themselves took part in scientific pursuits.“

If you think that this was simply a reflection of society, you must believe that in society at large, most people were ACTIVE churchmen?

I don’t believe this to be the case in 17th century England. I think it is unlikely, even in the most religious societies, that MOST people are ACTIVE churchmen.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ringo, posted 12-05-2017 10:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ringo, posted 12-06-2017 2:08 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 110 of 110 (825012)
12-06-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by kbertsche
12-05-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Science can actually be flawed massively?
kbertsche writes:

If you think that this was simply a reflection of society, you must believe that in society at large, most people were ACTIVE churchmen?


I asked how you would measure "how religious" somebody was. On what basis do you conclude that the scientists were "more active" than average?

And what bearing does that have on anything anyway?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 12-05-2017 12:58 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Prev1234567
8
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017