|
Author
|
Topic: Is Science a Religion?
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
Message 211 of 313 (382443)
02-04-2007 6:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by jar
02-04-2007 6:08 PM
|
|
Re: can't use the Bible to check Theology.
jar writes: What you are suggesting is measuring something against a standard which does not exist. There is not even one standard Bible, not even one standard list of books to be included in something called a "Bible". The standard exists...whether it be 5 books, 95 books, or something outside of the Bible altogether. The problem is, the standard itself can not be validated without a working theology, but is a 'conclusion' which the theology is tested against. We see revisions of the Bible to match the theology, revisions of the theology to match the Bible, and worst case scenerio, revisions of reality to match either.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by jar, posted 02-04-2007 6:08 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 212 by jar, posted 02-04-2007 6:23 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: can't use the Bible to check Theology.
Sorry. A standard that cannot be verified is not a standard.
The problem is, the standard itself can not be validated without a working theology, but is a 'conclusion' which the theology is tested against. What you have there is simply a circular reference. The theology is validated against the Bible which can only be validated against a theology. Sorry but it just doesn't work.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 211 by anastasia, posted 02-04-2007 6:19 PM | | anastasia has replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
|
Message 213 of 313 (382455)
02-04-2007 7:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by jar
02-04-2007 6:23 PM
|
|
Re: can't use the Bible to check Theology.
jar writes: Sorry. A standard that cannot be verified is not a standard. Don't over complicate it. All I meant was that a theology in which the Bible is central must agree with the text in order for over-all consistancy. And again, both must agree with reality.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by jar, posted 02-04-2007 6:23 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 214 of 313 (382457)
02-04-2007 7:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 206 by ringo
02-04-2007 2:57 PM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Ringo: As I said, science has to verify its extrapolations. Theology can not. The ToE for example has not been verified, it is extrapolated. And as such is called a theory. The doctrine of sin on the other hand, is the easiest thing in the world to provide evidence for. It is not only verified, but history repeating itself over and over again. Evidence from on a global scale, down to a village scale. Ringo: Yes. Science and religion are different. True! One actually has evidence, and the other is imaginative extrapolation of partial facts. Ringo: Nobody said anything about a "total difference". You are now moderating your position? Ringo: A truck is different from a fountain pen - different enough that nobody would claim a fountain pen is a truck. That doesn't mean there are no similarities. It means the differences outweigh the similarities. That's just rediculous on it's face! A muddying of the waters on your part; intentional deception. Theory and theology share the same extrapolating qualities. They are both faith. Science is sold as only dealing with facts, it's the theory where it moves beyond fact and into faith. Again I give you the Davies quote... Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology:
”The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way. Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it. But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview. That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.’ Ringo: I did not say one word about my "moral and political agenda". And the fact that you don't is very telling. But you exposed yourself in another thread, and that is why I mentioned it. In this message: http:// EvC Forum: Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century --> EvC Forum: Discrimination against homosexuals carried into the 21st century you said, in response to my mentioning the danger of polluting the blood supply with aids: "@#$% the danger." And in the same mesage, you said: Yes, I agree that we should do everything in our power to accomodate minorities. Have you no conscious Ringo? I suppose you don't believe in such things because science cannot verify them. But revealing discussions like this can verify much in the way of conscious and honesty (which science also cannot verify). Statistics can be manipulated in all manner of ways that leave no one with the ability to prove dishonesty. Such is the way of this sick game... Ringo: Science does not concern itself with holy answers. It concerns itself only with empirically verifiable answers about the empirically verifiable world. "The most emperically verifiable reality is the depravity of man. Yet at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact." (Malcomb Muggeridge) Sounds to me like science misses out on a lot, by being hi-jacked by those who only intend to use it for their own agendas.
Rob: Why would you ignore the moral side of the equation and use only science to guide you to whole (holy) answers? Ringo: I don't. You're the one who keeps bringing up inanities about "whole (holy) answers". You just admitted that you don't seek whole answers... you seek half truths to satisfy your appetite for sin without a conscious to convict you. That is blasphemy of the Spirit. It's an attitude... It is intentionally silencing your conscious. If you kill it (sounds like it might be too late) you'll be nothing but a machine driven by instincts and emotions (another head of the beast). 'Whole' answers are not inane Ringo... they are pivotal to wisdom. I only through in the (holy) to remind you where the root of the word comes from. You are meant to be a whole creature. With a functioning mind, soul, and spirit. If you are unholy, it is because you are out of balance. If you kill one of the three, you've damned yourself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 206 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 2:57 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 215 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 8:02 PM | | Rob has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 215 of 313 (382458)
02-04-2007 8:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 214 by Rob
02-04-2007 7:40 PM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Rob writes: The ToE for example has not been verified, it is extrapolated. And as such is called a theory. Clearly you don't understand what a theory is.
Yes. Science and religion are different. True! One actually has evidence, and the other is imaginative extrapolation of partial facts. Once again you agree that science is not a religion.
You just admitted that you don't seek whole answers... I said that science doesn't seek "whole answers". Please learn to read.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 214 by Rob, posted 02-04-2007 7:40 PM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 216 by Rob, posted 02-04-2007 9:26 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 216 of 313 (382463)
02-04-2007 9:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by ringo
02-04-2007 8:02 PM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Ringo: I said that science doesn't seek "whole answers". Please learn to read. No, I said that... You said science is the only thing verifiable. This is what I said: The ToE for example has not been verified, it is extrapolated. And as such is called a theory. The doctrine of sin on the other hand, is the easiest thing in the world to provide evidence for. It is not only verified, but history repeating itself over and over again. "The depravity of man, is at once, the most emperically verifiable reality. Yet, at the same time, it is the most intellectually resisted fact." (Malcomb Muggeridge) Neither one of us has a reading problem. You just have an honesty problem.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 8:02 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 217 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 9:44 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 217 of 313 (382467)
02-04-2007 9:44 PM
|
Reply to: Message 216 by Rob
02-04-2007 9:26 PM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
You said science is the only thing verifiable. I said that science is empirically verifiable and religion is not. Religion claims to have "whole answers" and science does not. You very clearly do have a reading problem. There are multiple examples in this thread alone where you have misquoted me, miscontrued me and misrepresented me. They are plain for everybody to see and I have pointed out only a few of them. You have also agreed multiple times that science is nothing like religion, so why do you continue to argue about it?
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 216 by Rob, posted 02-04-2007 9:26 PM | | Rob has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 218 of 313 (382497)
02-05-2007 12:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by ringo
02-04-2007 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Ringo: Hint: if you want to claim that science is a religion, show us how they are similar not how they are different. If you say so... Phillip Johnson - author ”Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley-
“With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately real, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from. Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists. So the Darwinian story says that ultimately all that is real is nature. Nature is all there is, and nature is composed of matter; the particles making up matter and energy that physicists study. So, this is the philosophy called naturalism, or materialism. And since that’s all there is, it follows, that matter must have done all the creating that had to be done; that is to say, matter, unassisted by God, or any other intelligent force. According to materialism, a mind can’t exist until it evolves mindlessly from matter. And so it follows that we are the products of an unguided, purposeless material force; which specifically is called Darwinian evolution when you get to the history of life. And so we get our information about it (and really, information about everything) from science." Dean Kenyon - coauthor of textbook on theory of biochemical evolution ”biochemical predestination’ 1969 / professor of biology (emeritus) San Fransisco State university- Describing the complexity of a living cell-
"Back in the days of Charles Darwin, relatively little was known about the complexity (the enormous complexity) of the microscopic world -the microscopic aspects of living organisms. There was a view in the latter part of the nineteenth century that a living cell was essentially a featureless bag of enzymes; all, kind of in a true solution. Not much in the way of detailed three dimensional complexity. But of course in the twentieth century, we’ve made enormous strides in understanding that that’s not the case at all. There is a very great degree of intricacy of architecture down in the cell units. So today, everybody understands about bits and bites, and so perhaps a useful illustration of the complexity of, say the DNA molecule, might be helpful. You can calculate the number of bits contained in tightly packed DNA material that would fill one cubic millimeter of space as equaling 1.9 times 10 to the 18th power, bits ( or, 1,900,000,000,000,000,000). Now that number, is by many orders of magnitude, vastly greater than the storage capacity of the best supercomputing machines. Their storage capacity is far less, than the storage capacity in the DNA Molecule. Now moreover, the DNA itself as it functions in a living cell has about one hundred different proteins involved with just its own functioning. And then you have these tens of thousands of other proteins in the living cell also involved. So we have now a picture of immense sub-microscopic complexity. And so no longer is it a reasonable proposition to think that simple chemical events could have any chance at all, to generate the kind of complexity we see in the very simplest living organisms. So, we have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the simplest of cells, with the new knowledge that’s accumulated in this century.” Stephen C. Meyer -philosopher of science, Discovery institute- Answering the question - ”Why can’t biological information originate through a materialistic process’?
“One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ”what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ”Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ”information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” Phillip Johnson on the question: What is information?’
“Information at the simplest level is just meaningful text. You can say it’s like the plays of Shakespear or the Bible if you want to pick something noble. It’s like the Los Angeles telephone directory f you want to pick something much more mundane. Perhaps an instruction book, let’s say a cookbook with all of the recipes would be a better example; or a computer program; the operating system of a PC. Now, in order to have a computer operating system, you have to have lots and lots of that text and instructions. So it’s extremely complex. That’s feature number one, it’s a lot of letters (or digits) in a specific order. And the order is specified, that’s point number two; which is to say that only one complex arrangement will do to operate the computer. If you got another one, you’ve got something that won’t work at all. So it’s specified complexity. And a third feature is called aperiodic, or non-repeating. And that means it’s not the result of physical or chemical laws, because those laws always produce simple repetitive patterns. For example, you can imagine a book tha’s written this way: you put a macro on your computer processor that says reapeat the letters ABC until the printer runs out of paper. And you’d get a book like that, and it wouldn’t be a very interesting book. And it would never get more interesting because the same laws that give you that pattern, ensure that you’ll never get a different pattern, or a more meaningful one. So the information in the computers operating system, like the information that has to be present to operate all of the cells machinery, is complex, specified, non-repeating (meaningful) text. And without exception, in all of our experience, you never get anything like that unless you have an author. To get computer software, you have to have a software engineer. To have an encyclopedia you actually need a lot of different authors and editors. To get the plays of Shakespear, you need Shakespear.” (4 of 12 quotes from the Q&A section in the bonus material available on the DVD documentary, 'Unlocking the Mystery of Life') If you like the quotes... you gotta hear what's on the documentary! If you don't like them... then get a life!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by ringo, posted 02-04-2007 12:14 PM | | ringo has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 219 of 313 (382501)
02-05-2007 12:34 AM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:10 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Rob writes: If you like the quotes... I don't like the quotes. Please put your argument in your own words to demonstrate that you understand it. The question is simple enough: What are the similarities between science and religion? Just list some for now and we'll examine them one at a time.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:10 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 224 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:59 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: 11-05-2006
|
|
|
Message 220 of 313 (382503)
02-05-2007 12:36 AM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:10 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
Dear Rob, Science is not religion, that is clear. I do not want to be off-topic in this post, but I was thinking that instead of discussing this here, you might want to start something on what happens when science takes the place of religion, how to recognize the mind-set, pit-falls, what have you. I did come across an example of what you may be getting at, a post by Larni in another thread, in which he says ;
Larni writes: This is where you sell yourself short: you attribute to a god your own wonderfull appreciation of reality. You are nature's fanatastic creation. Don't attribute 'you' to someone else. It demeans you. He denied any deifying of nature itself...but this thought leaves huge gaps for me as it is. I can either thank God for me, or an impersonal Nature, or well, myself, which is little short of vanity. Now, of course I am lucky, 'blessed' if you will. I do not deny that it is pure 'luck' which made me free from major or mental or physical defect. But I can't honestly get a feel for how to attribute my creation to nature. It may simply be that I have lived within my own bias for so long that this idea just sounds odd. maybe there is no need for thankfulness at all. Naturally, however, I often am thankful, and the thought of having no 'benefactor' is odd for me. If this is too off-topic, perhaps you can give me thoughts elsewhere. I don't want to be offensive.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:10 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 221 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:50 AM | | anastasia has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 221 of 313 (382505)
02-05-2007 12:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 220 by anastasia
02-05-2007 12:36 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
I don't want to be offensive. Why not? Jesus was... why do you think they killed Him? Rebel with confidence and love of life and no fear of death.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 220 by anastasia, posted 02-05-2007 12:36 AM | | anastasia has not replied |
|
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: 01-04-2007
|
|
|
Message 222 of 313 (382506)
02-05-2007 12:52 AM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:10 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
quote:
"So the Darwinian story says that ultimately all that is real is nature. Nature is all there is, and nature is composed of matter; the particles making up matter and energy that physicists study. So, this is the philosophy called naturalism, or materialism. And since that’s all there is, it follows, that matter must have done all the creating that had to be done; that is to say, matter, unassisted by God, or any other intelligent force. According to materialism, a mind can’t exist until it evolves mindlessly from matter. And so it follows that we are the products of an unguided, purposeless material force; which specifically is called Darwinian evolution when you get to the history of life.
And so we get our information about it (and really, information about everything) from science."
There is a sharp distinction between methodological naturalism (the principle that science cannot investigate the supernatural, so must assume they don't exist for the purposes of the scientific method) and ontological naturalism (the principle that the supernatural cannot and does not exist). Science does not, as Johnson claims, "say that ultimately all that is real is nature". This is not a testable hypothesis, and as such is unscientific.
"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:10 AM | | Rob has not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 223 of 313 (382507)
02-05-2007 12:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 218 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:10 AM
|
|
Pointless analogies.
Yes, Messers Johnson, Kenton and Meyer do love their analogies, don't they? Here's the problem. This is how adding "information" by mutation works. We begin with a DNA molecule. In one of a number of different ways, when it is copied the new molecule is different from the old one, different because the gene sequences are no longer identical. Sometimes there's stuff missing, sometime there's extra stuff, sometimes some of the stuff has changed. Sometimes the change is meaningless, sometimes the change alters how the gene works. In the second situation, what Johnson et. al. call "new information" has been added. No laws of thermodynamics have been violated. There was no author. It was simply an error in copying, a mutation. That these changes occur is indisputable. That these different kinds of effects can result is indisputable. Johnson and company can argue until they are blue in the face, but no matter how persuasive their analogies are, they cannot overcome readily observable facts. Edited by subbie, : Typo
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 218 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:10 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 227 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 1:09 AM | | subbie has replied | | | Message 228 by Doddy, posted 02-05-2007 1:10 AM | | subbie has not replied |
|
Rob
Suspended Member (Idle past 5870 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: 06-01-2006
|
|
|
Message 224 of 313 (382509)
02-05-2007 12:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 219 by ringo
02-05-2007 12:34 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
I don't like the quotes. Please put your argument in your own words to demonstrate that you understand it.  You twisted my own words... Now you can deal with 'real' scientists like Kenyon. Tell him science is not a religion. He was one of the priests at one time. But he saw the error of his ways. Tell him he is not imaginative enough (That he can't extrapolate the data to mean what you want it to mean). His theories are too emperical, and not creative enough. That he's oversimplifying and that it's not fair, because it doesn't give you the ability to confuse the issues with sohist rhetoric and detailed minutia.
What are the similarities between science and religion? Just list some for now and we'll examine them one at a time. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If he doesn't find it himself, he's too proud to accept what's free! Absolutely mind boggling! Oh great abyss, how you swirl and threaten. Oh mighty queen of the deep, how you mystify and delude.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 219 by ringo, posted 02-05-2007 12:34 AM | | ringo has replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 225 of 313 (382511)
02-05-2007 1:02 AM
|
Reply to: Message 224 by Rob
02-05-2007 12:59 AM
|
|
Re: Do not fear the magicians of science!
What are the similarities between science and religion? Just list some for now and we'll examine them one at a time. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. If he doesn't find it himself, he's too proud to accept what's free! In other words, you got nothin'!
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 224 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 12:59 AM | | Rob has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 232 by Rob, posted 02-05-2007 1:17 AM | | subbie has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2