Faith Science - Logically Indefensible

The difference between science and faith based religion is that science will abandon a position if a new theory does a better job than the previous. Science has a built-in self-questioning and self-correction mechanism like the control algorithms of a autopilot. This keeps current scientific dogma flying straight and level even though a pertubation (bad theory) momentarily throws it off course.Religion on the other hand has no self-correction mechanism. New creative thinking is not encouraged and will typically get you excommunicated or burned at the stake. In most religions after canonization of the critical "scripture", the religion continues to fly the same erroneous course and ends up far of track.Ironically fundamentalist religion (christian or islamic) springs from a deep desire to embrace absolutes. However being faith based instead of observation based it has no absolutes other than the written word. Fundamental religion consequently elevates the written word above all else, even though the text was written centuries ago by people who knew less about the world than the contemporary reader.Recently, I came across an excellent example of this at an article at the well known bastion of modern science.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0329gilgamesh.asp

quote:

---

Enemies of biblical Christianity assert that the biblical account borrowed from the Gilgamesh epic. Followers of Christ cannot agree. So in line with the Apostle Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 10:5, it’s important to demolish this liberal theory.

---

Their reading (twisted interpretation?) of the word clearly shows that objective evidence takes a second seat to accepted prevailing beliefs. A good example of how faith and science are incompatible.

I'll disagree with your subtitle. Religion and science can be compatible. There are many deeply religious scientists who are doing sound science.Many of those deeply religious scientists believe that the universe is God's creation, and that science can allow them to understand that creation better, and to thereby better understand their God.

A good example is in the area of Baraminolgy. They set out some guidelines which can be found here.The very first of these show why Creation Science can NEVER be science and is doomed to failure. That position, one of placing something in an unchallengeable position means that it can NEVER be scientific.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Science would not abandon a position based on a known fact.There is lots and lots of room for creative thinking about HOW the Flood happened, how evolutionist explanations are wrong, how the geo column was formed, how genetics works really, etc etc. etc. Paul's statements ARE objective fact. The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact. This is what you don't get. You guys just compartmentalize your facts and judge from sheer prejudice.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, that is false. As new information is found what was thought to be known fact is abandoned all the time in Science.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I said a KNOWN fact, jar. I MEANT a KNOWN fact. I meant an absolutely incontrovertible fact. And my statement is true.

Science has no FACTS that are not held tentatively. You have been told that before haven't you?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

2 + 2 = 4

Mathematics is an exception. I will grant that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

you're still right, seeing as how math isn't science. It is one hundred percent pure logic. There's no method behind it (like the scientific method, and yes, I do realize that if you don't complete toe order of operations in the right order you get the wrong answer, but that's not the type of method I'm talking about). There is no philosophy behind it (though philosophies can revolve around it--ask Pythagoras).

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

It isn't just mathematics.It is incontrovertible that 1 metre = 100 centimetres. We could, of course, change our measuring standards and abandon that "fact". But until we do, it is not subject to experimental falsification.If is also incontrovertible that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity.We can consider two kinds of fact.

There are facts about the world.

There are structural facts; facts about our procedures and our definitions, such as are needed to establish sensible methods and criteria for our investigation.

​

It is the facts about the world that can always be challenged by new data. Structural facts are normally held to be incontrovertible, except that we might abandon them if we change our procedures and methodology (as in a paradigm shift).

​

The problem with Faith's position, as expressed in Message 79 and Message 81, is that she is wanting to hold facts about the world as incontrovertible. To do that is irrational, for if a fact cannot be potentially contradicted by data, then patently it is not a fact about the world.

​

Sorry if this was a little off-topic. I wanted to clarify, so that we can be more careful about what kind of fact we are saying is tentative.

​

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

We just changed both the length of the official meter and the definition of a second.As new information becomes available, science changes. As FACTS are shown to be inaccurate, they change.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Indeed, though I question the "just".But we did not change them because we determined that they were wrong. Rather, we changed them because we determined that the newer definitions would provide more effective standards on which to base our measurements.If you want to continue with this digression, I think we need a new thread for that.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Nah. Let it ride.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Not sure what you are trying to say. Maybe if you provide an example it would make it clear.Science has on many occasions abandoned previous theories based on a new theory that better explains observations. I am sure you are familiar with them, no need to confuse this topic with the list. Hmmm... Now I am beginning to wonder if I am being trolled.But thank you for graciously highlighting my point. You start with a presupposition (the flood happened) and allow for no other possibilities. All creative solutions must fall with this realm. You start with the solution and just look to fill in the details.If science was religion there would be some sage in the middle ages who commented that luminferous aether permeates the universe. From the point on all scientist could do was to prove the existence of aether and explain natural phenomena based on aether. This would be the case even though the concept was seriously flawed. Science would stay retarded forever. Let us examine Paul statement: Were is the objective fact here?BTW replace Christ with Allah or Muhammad in the above quote and this would sound very much like something you would hear in Madrassa in Pakistan. You would find excellent agreement with fundamentalist Muslims. OK you are forcing me to look up the definition of objective. I know your "links" are not working so I will cut-n-paste for you, but if you do have a dictionary (NOT A BIBLE DICTIONARY)....Objective: (from Answers.com)2) Having actual existence or reality.
3.a) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
3.b) Based on observable phenomena; presented factually
4) Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.The above quote by Paul uses no facts, is an opinion, not observable, is biased and dictates prejudice. Prejudiced just like your desire to say the flood existed. You prejudged its existence, not on fact but on opinion.If the biblical account was not available to you would laugh at anyone to suggest the myths presented there. You would not discover them by observation and measurement. Faith this is the very essence of the point. I do not compartmentalize my facts.However you clearly admitted above that you compartmentalize your facts and are prejudiced. Your compartment and prejudice: the flood happened, the earth is young, the creation happened in 7 days. Science starts out looking for the truth with no sacred cows. You start with your supposed truths and look to fill in the details.Since we slinging scripture around, I wanted to share this scripture 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things hold fast that which is good". I stood amazed. This is amazing insightful for 1st century thought.