|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity, Knowledge and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cocytus writes: Scientists state that, through further study of the properties of stem cells, certain diseases and injuries might become curable or treatable. Suppose:
quote: The "scientists" who made statements similar to that did not base their ideas on religion. You are making a false dichotomy of religion versus science. There is a continuum - scientists who don't believe in God, scientists who do believe in God, believers who accept science, believers who don't accept science... and every nuance in between. Your conclusion about "the channels through which they recieve knowledge" is quite wrong. The same person can receive one kind of knowledge through one channel and another kind of knowledge through a different channel. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Cocytus writes: That isn't an argument. It's the same argument to some people because experimenting on live humans is the same as experimenting on stem cells to some people. Who those people are is not necessarily based on religion.
It is my contention that A is superior to B because it aims for X. But B also aims for X.
A does not self-define Y and aim for it at all cost, regardless of evidence stacked against it. Neither does B, necessarily. You're creating a strawman to go with your false dilemna. False dilemna: A and B. Strawman: B disregards evidence. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: Cocytus said:Christianity has, within it's very first book Genesis, stigmatized knowledge itself as something terrible. NO it doesn't. It stigmatizes knowledge of evil as terrible. I don't think that's right either.
quote: Knowledge is not stigmatized. It makes us more like God. You can't separate out the knowledge of evil as "terrible". The knowledge of good and evil is what makes us more like God. But that knowledge doesn't consist of simple answers to hard questions. Knowledge is a heavy responsibility. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: Who get's to choose how much like God we are supposed to be? What is humanity's perfection? Choice has nothing to do with it. "How much" we are like God has nothiing to do with it. The topic is about knowledge and I was pointing out that knowledge is not stigmatized in the first part of Genesis. Far from it. Knowledge makes us "more like God". That's a good thing. That's all. No need to measure it.
Does a rock question why God made it a rock? Rocks didn't eat the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They are irrelevant to the topic.
How well can you handle what knowledge you have Ringo? As I said, the answers are not simple. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: God has many qualities. If you think gaining one of those qualites (knowledge) without gaining the complimentary discipline (morality) that balances that power is good.... What? The knowledge I'm talking about is the knowledge of good and evil. That is morality. There is no question of "balance" or "power". It's about knowledge - and knowing what is good or evil in a specific situation is the hard part. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: Do you have all knowledge, such as knowledge of the consequences of actions new to you? Irrelevant. I have the responsibility to act on the knowledge that I do have. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: When it comes to the GoE, what exactly was stigmatized? Are we convinced that anything was "stigmatized" (even in the broader sense of that word)?
Was the 'knowledge' of good and evil factual knowledge? Was it wisdom? Or simply a misnomer for the ability or awareness to recognize a good action or a bad one? I think "knowledge" is a misnomer in a way. The story seems to be more about explaining why we have the responsibility to use our factual knowledge and our wisdom, instead of blindly "following orders". The "knowledge" is more like an ability to learn.
Maybe,the knowledge WASN'T evil, but it had consequences, like getting kicked out of the GoE, just because they didn't know how to handle it yet. A lot of times, the knowledge of good and evil entails choosing between less-than-perfect options. Take the stem cell issue: Which is worse? Killing a potential life? Or doing less than we can to preserve an existing life? The knowledge of good and evil is not always cut and dried. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes: So a barreier to scientific progress is in place because of an irrational untestable religious conviction. What you're describing sounds more like a political problem than a religious one. "Those in power" can derive their convictions from a lot of sources besides religious ones. In Canada, our politicians make all kinds of irrational decisions based on untestable convictions - but not necessarily religious convictions. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes: Can you really claim that religious beliefs never have, currently are not, or never will? Of course not. I'm saying it is not the only factor and probably not the most important factor. Contrary to your claim, I would say that politics is more likely to stifle scientific inquiry - precisely because politics is more concerned with the "real world" than religion is. I would also suggest that religion can only stifle scientific inquiry through political means. The church can foster individual ignorance but the legislature can make it a national policy. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: But what if He took responsibility and paid with his own life rather than condmen us? Paid whom? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
scottness writes: Paid whom? His own demand for justice; Himself! That's pretty silly. Pay Himself by killing Himself? Is it any wonder that people scoff at the "knowledge" that some Christians claim to have? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hi, bujitsu. Welcome to EvC.
bujitsu writes: There will always be room for faith, because we can never know everything. As I see it, "making room for faith" is the problem. The attitude that faith is a good thing prompts people to put faith ahead of other things.
quote: Faith is for things that are not seen. It is not intended to trump things that are seen. If religions saw faith as a backup plan instead of The Plan™, the world would be a better place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bujitsu writes: Evolution (I am using evolution because that is a major part of this whole discussion) is possibly one of those things. Like it or not, it is still a THEORY. It is NOT a fact. You're misunderstanding the terminology. Evolution is both a theory and a fact. Evolution is observed - there are lots of threads on that here if you choose to seek them out. Evolution is a fact. The "Theory of Evolution" is an explanation of that fact - it explains how evolution works.
Ringo, like it or not, you have faith in your science. You have faith that the evidence you have seen explains the conclusions you have come to. But faith in science is not valid science. Science has to be objective - different people have to be able to draw the same conclusions from the same observations.
It is not faith that is the problem, it is faith without sight. AKA "blind faith". I agree. That is why faith in science is not valid. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bujitsu writes: Evolution, as a WHOLE, is still a theory. As I said, you're not understanding what a theory is.
Question: Why do so many scientists, on both sides, honestly view the evidence, and come to many different conclusions? They don't. If you think they do, please give examples.
You can NOT honestly tell me that you KNOW 100% that every answer you (or any scientist) has come up with is 100% correct. Of course not. Only faith claims to be 100% correct.
You believe evolution completely (or at least I am assuming you do). Your assumption is wrong. I don't "believe" evolution at all.
I am just saying that; Faith comes into play for everyone. And I'm saying you're wrong. Faith is not allowed in science, precisely because it produces the misconceptions that you have. I repeat, faith is for what is not seen. Science deals only with what we do see. No overlap.
There are many non-Christian scientists that do not believe in evolution on the large scale.... You've been duped. There are almost no scientists - Christian or not - who don't accept the fact of evolution. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
bujitsu writes: Like it or not, most evolutionists are biased. They are just as biased about their views as creationists, or any others, are biased about theirs. That is false, as I have already told you. A Muslim scientist and an atheist scientist and a Buddhist scientist and a Satanist scientist must all set aside their biases to look at the evidence objectively. If they can't see their own biases, somebody else will point them out. The only biases that can survive peer review are ones that nobody can see. (And if nobody can see it, how do you know it's there?) Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024