Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 1 of 303 (228985)
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


The question proposed for discussion is based on the following observations:
1) Fundamentalists tend to advocate faith ,or mysticism, as superior to reason and the scientific method.
2) Fundamentalists tend to insist that if scientific data conflict with their religious texts or dogmas (as interpreted by the fundamentalists), the religious text or dogma is to be preferred as the arbiter of truth.
3) Nevertheless, most fundamentalists usually have no qualms about taking advantage of technologies that could not have been developed without the scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts.
Some examples of this are, antibiotics and evolution, computers and quantum physics, petroleum and mainstream geology.
More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.
I propose a discussion of the following questions:
Is the use of technologies by fundamentalists, that depend on fundamentalist-rejected science, hypocritical or a form of intellectual freeloading?
Would fundamentalists who reject scientific reasoning in favor of faith or mysticism based epistemologies, be more intellectualy honest to adopt lifestyles that exclude the use of modern technologies that depend on the scientific reasoning they reject, much as the Amish do ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by macaroniandcheese, posted 08-04-2005 6:46 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 4 by arachnophilia, posted 08-04-2005 7:03 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 8:21 PM paisano has replied
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 8:50 PM paisano has replied
 Message 7 by Philip, posted 08-04-2005 9:10 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 11:21 AM paisano has replied
 Message 17 by EltonianJames, posted 08-06-2005 1:41 AM paisano has replied
 Message 67 by randman, posted 08-09-2005 4:53 PM paisano has replied
 Message 92 by robinrohan, posted 08-09-2005 11:21 PM paisano has not replied
 Message 154 by Phat, posted 08-11-2005 1:35 PM paisano has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 303 (229498)
08-03-2005 9:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 3 of 303 (229866)
08-04-2005 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


yes it is hypocritical. but then they are known for such. and besides. they'd never admit that such technologies could not be developped without the alternate ways of thinking. cause eventually god would have given the knowledge to someone. *sigh*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 4 of 303 (229877)
08-04-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


personally, i'm for wandering in the desert.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 303 (229896)
08-04-2005 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


Nonsense
2) Fundamentalists tend to insist that if scientific data conflict with their religious texts or dogmas (as interpreted by the fundamentalists), the religious text or dogma is to be preferred as the arbiter of truth.
True. Speaking only for Christian "fundamentalists" anyway.
3) Nevertheless, most fundamentalists usually have no qualms about taking advantage of technologies that could not have been developed without the scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts.
True: no qualms.
False: scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts. Again, speaking only for Christian "fundamentalists."
Hey, let me get smart and ask you for proof of this. Evidence please that "fundamentalists" say scientific concepts conflict with their religious concepts.
Some examples of this are, antibiotics and evolution, computers and quantum physics, petroleum and mainstream geology.
Nonsense. Christians have no problem whatever with science. Some of the greatest scientists in history have been Christians of the fundamentalist type, that is, followers of the literal Bible. Michael Faraday was one
Evidence again please.
More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.
Total nonsense. Straw man. Speaking again only for Christian "fundamentalists."
Evidence for this too please.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-04-2005 08:38 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:34 PM Faith has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 6 of 303 (229899)
08-04-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


No.
Let them use anything we discover. If they choose not to use the results then unless it's endangering a minor, fine, but in general, carry them. It's the Christian thing to do.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:38 PM jar has not replied
 Message 117 by Omnivorous, posted 08-10-2005 12:07 PM jar has not replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 7 of 303 (229907)
08-04-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


Fundy Science
Paisano, I don't know many fundy's who consciously reject science. Some I know at least accept science as a means to *have domininion* over nature, as per Gen 1:26.
(And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.)
Many (in the world) are just simple farmers, however, and don’t practice industrious science. And, I’ve seen *Amish missionaries* living much more Savy than the fundy-Haitians (in Haiti).
Admittedly, I myself, have *freeloaded* science (i.e., having excessively *dominated* my podiatry clinics with my EMR and Billing programs (Visual-FoxPro 9, Com, Win-API, VB Script, etc.) to do away with employees in my podiatry practice (Doctor Professional | Pure & Natural Supplements). Also, I personally have 4 science degrees (including an MS in Biomed) and view no conflict between science and faith.
Furthermore, faith is evidence of things unseen (Heb 11.1 KJV). Consider the *incredible* Macro-ToE faith-religion. How can such (faith) evidence possibly conflict with science evidence? (Deerbreh, might view that as that an oxymoron?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 8 of 303 (229949)
08-04-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
08-04-2005 8:21 PM


Re: Nonsense
Hey, let me get smart and ask you for proof of this. Evidence please that "fundamentalists" say scientific concepts conflict with their religious concepts.
By all means. Indeed, I'll co-opt evidence you yourself have provided, with your kind indulgence.
The scenario depicted in your current avatar has serious issues with veracity not only from the standpoint of geology, oceanography, and biology, but also naval engineering (specifically structural engineering, hydraulics, and stability) and civil engineering (specifically sanitation).
Your only real options are a) to insist that it is, nevertheless, true, due to what you consider scriptural evidence, or b) to argue that it does not, in fact, violate the above fields.
By your own admission, you'd regard option a) as viable. Fair enough, but you have ipso facto rejected modern science and engineering in favor of what you feel is a correct scriptural interpretation. QED.
Whether taking advantage of modern engineering in the face of this is hypocritical is the matter under discussion. If you feel that it is not, please elaborate.
We'd have to start a new thread to do option b), since this is not a science forum, but I and I suspect other posters would be more than prepared to join discussion on those topics. I think defending option b) would be a difficult exercise for you.
More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.
You don't agree ? Then why all the fuss about evolution and mainstream geology ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 08-04-2005 8:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 5:05 AM paisano has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 9 of 303 (229952)
08-04-2005 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
08-04-2005 8:50 PM


Re: No.
Let them use anything we discover. If they choose not to use the results then unless it's endangering a minor, fine, but in general, carry them. It's the Christian thing to do.
I would not even begin to suggest that fundamentalists should be denied modern technologies through any form of coercion.
I support all forms of religious freedom that do not involve submission to or perpetration of violence.
I just wonder if "voluntary simplicity" would feel like a more intellectually honest option, much like home schooling, to some fundamentalists.
It's intended to be a "fun discussion topic".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 08-04-2005 8:50 PM jar has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 303 (230020)
08-05-2005 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by paisano
08-04-2005 10:34 PM


Re: Nonsense
Hey, let me get smart and ask you for proof of this. Evidence please that "fundamentalists" say scientific concepts conflict with their religious concepts.
By all means. Indeed, I'll co-opt evidence you yourself have provided, with your kind indulgence.
The scenario depicted in your current avatar has serious issues with veracity not only from the standpoint of geology, oceanography, and biology, but also naval engineering (specifically structural engineering, hydraulics, and stability) and civil engineering (specifically sanitation).
AW, you would point to my cute little medieval drawing of Noah's ark and claim I intend it as a scientific treatise? You call that evidence? Alas I suspect that you very well might, since you wrote that total straw man of an opening post in the first place. No wonder the EvoCreo debate goes nowhere with such egregiously irrational misrepresentations. Tch tch.
Your only real options are a) to insist that it is, nevertheless, true, due to what you consider scriptural evidence, or b) to argue that it does not, in fact, violate the above fields.
By your own admission, you'd regard option a) as viable. Fair enough, but you have ipso facto rejected modern science and engineering in favor of what you feel is a correct scriptural interpretation. QED.
Uh, what are you talking about? I asked you to prove that anyone, including myself, ever said anything rejecting of science. You seem to be blathering about some fantasy about my cute little avatar.
Whether taking advantage of modern engineering in the face of this is hypocritical is the matter under discussion. If you feel that it is not, please elaborate.
I'm beginning to think that anybody who has such a bizarre idea about a person's avatar should well be kept away from machinery and all other products of modern engineering.
We'd have to start a new thread to do option b), since this is not a science forum, but I and I suspect other posters would be more than prepared to join discussion on those topics. I think defending option b) would be a difficult exercise for you.
Defend what again? My little medieval picture? From what again?
More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.
You don't agree ? Then why all the fuss about evolution and mainstream geology ?
The ToE and the Geo Time Scale are imaginative constructs, interpretations, science only in the most general and tenuous sense. This is the contention and the limit of the dispute with "science." They aren't science, merely frameworks within which science works, unfortunately, as they only mislead. Nobody has any problem with the actual science at all, the geology, the biology, the lab work, the field work, the genetics, and certainly not engineering. That's real science. Good stuff. Get rid of the ToE and the GeoTime stuff and real science can proceed with more freedom and less waste.
Would you care to take a stab at coming up with support for your opening thesis again? And don't be so ridiculous.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 05:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by paisano, posted 08-04-2005 10:34 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by paisano, posted 08-05-2005 9:38 AM Faith has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 11 of 303 (230086)
08-05-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
08-05-2005 5:05 AM


Re: Nonsense
Then you agree that the story surrounding the vessel depicted in your cute little avatar is not literal history?
If not, I must decline your kind offer of red herring, no matter how tastefully prepared.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 5:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 10:29 AM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 303 (230099)
08-05-2005 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by paisano
08-05-2005 9:38 AM


Re: Nonsense
Um, the red herring appears to be your weird attack on my cute little avatar.
Seriously, your accusations of "fundamentalists" are a straw man, and you are still obligated to produce evidence that anyone has said anything against science. My avatar is hardly a threat to science, cute little thing, though it certainly shows that they didn't know a lot about the Bible in the Middle Ages as the real ark was bigger than some modern battleships.
I gave evidence that there is no contradiction between Christian fundamentalism and science, and that shoots your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by paisano, posted 08-05-2005 9:38 AM paisano has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 303 (230134)
08-05-2005 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


Tell you what. I will agree that we fundies should consider depriving ourselves of the enjoyment of any technology that owes absolutely nothing to the work of fundamentalist Bible believers, such as
Blaise Pascal and Michael Faraday
though I suggest that YOU learn to live without those technologies we owe to them, since you don't appreciate the fundy mentality that contributed to their development.
And if I am able to establish the fundy credentials of other scientists I will propose that you live without benefit of their work as well. Clearly it is we fundies who should enjoy the benefits rather than the debunkers.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 11:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by paisano, posted 08-05-2005 12:28 PM Faith has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 14 of 303 (230165)
08-05-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
08-05-2005 11:21 AM


Well, Pascal was Catholic, so I doubt if you'd have much success establishing his credentials as someone who agreed with your theology.
In any case, Pascal and Faraday, and I'm sure others, may have been creationists. So what? They lived in times before evolution was developed, based on the evidence.
This is like arguing that geocentrism is correct because Augustine accepted it.
It's irrelevant.
Now you might try proving that your supposed "fundy" scientists rejected methodological naturalism and routinely appealed to the supernatural in their work.
In fact, I really think you should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 11:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 1:56 PM paisano has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 303 (230221)
08-05-2005 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by paisano
08-05-2005 12:28 PM


Pascal's group the Jansenists were borderline heretics from the Catholic point of view, a little too Protestant for their taste. He was an anti-Jesuit.
Now you might try proving that your supposed "fundy" scientists rejected methodological naturalism and routinely appealed to the supernatural in their work.
No, I think YOU should prove that creationist scientists today do this "IN THEIR WORK" (as opposed to their creationist apologetics if they engage in it).
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-05-2005 01:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by paisano, posted 08-05-2005 12:28 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by paisano, posted 08-05-2005 2:40 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024