|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ground Rules | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Prior to their landing on Plymouth Rock, there had already been a Puritan revolution in England where in fact they were persecuted by the Church of England. Quakers assemblies were abolished and punishable by torture and/or imprisonment. True, but the Puritans didn't come here from England. They left England and went to live with the Dutch, who were much more tolerant of religious groups. The Puritans thought they'd be fine, but they noticed their children playing with kids who didn't believe like they did and became concerned they were being "tainted" and so set out for the new world with the intent of starting their own country that would be a Puritan one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
Well, your responses have me reexamining my feelings on the film and sign I wrote about. At the time I visited the park, the film and sign did not feel agnostic to me. They stated absolute facts, which told me my religious faith was wrong. But I didn't know Phage's ground rule--the ground rule that " the concept that we could be in error is already part of the scientific system".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4760 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined: |
True, but the Puritans didn't come here from England. They left England and went to live with the Dutch, who were much more tolerant of religious groups. The Puritans thought they'd be fine, but they noticed their children playing with kids who didn't believe like they did and became concerned they were being "tainted" and so set out for the new world with the intent of starting their own country that would be a Puritan one. My private hypothesis, with no evidence, is that the strength of American conservatism is related to this strong puritan heritage. We simply don't have the same thing over here in the UK. Re ground rules, the possibility of error is assumed among scientists, but it is not assumed by non-scientists and they tend to interpret scientific statements as definitely true('scientifically proven'). So I think when debating with non-scientists this assumption needs to be made explicit. In fact in my experience, some YECs get really annoyed when I tell them that science is not able to prove its theories are true. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
My private hypothesis, with no evidence, is that the strength of American conservatism is related to this strong puritan heritage. We simply don't have the same thing over here in the UK. I've been assering that (with equal lack of objective evidence) for a long time. America, as a country, has an unbelievable preoccupation with sex, "morality", and militarism in the face of conflicting viewpoints, all of which is paralleled with the Puritan mindset.
Re ground rules, the possibility of error is assumed among scientists, but it is not assumed by non-scientists and they tend to interpret scientific statements as definitely true('scientifically proven'). So I think when debating with non-scientists this assumption needs to be made explicit. Again, I agree. When a sicentist is speaking to a colleague, they will often assume the other person knows there is a tentativity, and will probably only mention it when speaking in terms of a margin of error of X percent. When speaking to a lay audience, this is one of the facts about science that needs to be hammered home and repeated until it sinks in. People who read pop-sci magazines and websites, or who view Discovery Channel specials as "gospel" truth do science a disservice when they see next year's special and notice it says something different and decide that scientists don't know what they're talking about. It's like people who criticize the weatherman for getting the forecast wrong...they just don't understand what a forecast is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
InGodITrust writes:
Out of curiosity, would you consider this part of your own thought process? For instance if you were asked "Is it possible that you are wrong about your current beliefs?" what would your answer be? What do your think the breakdown would be (yes or no) among your friends and relatives?
They stated absolute facts, which told me my religious faith was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
Phage, I hold steadfast to my faith. I have had doubts from time to time, but keep returning to the belief that God exists. My faith did not come from weighing the Bible against other religions and science, and then selecting the Bible as the rational choice. My faith came through prayer.
My family is mostly not religious. I haven't really discussed this with any freinds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
Bluescat, you wrote that it is absurd for me to think that science=atheism. And for the most part it would be absurd. But in some areas of science it would not be such a stretch. How about the origin of life? Isn't that an area with a lot of scientist trying to find how life occurred "naturally", through chemical reactions, rather than being created by a god?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4217 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
This is what I was responding to.
Why is atheism the official government position? All the sign and film would have had to add was something like "scientists conclude the age of the formation to be"; or "geologists date the formation"; and it would be better. Instead the we are taught matter-of-factly that " the age is".
My point is that you are saying Atheism when the point of issue, the sign giving the information is science. The government position is science which is secular. What do you want 1000 creation myths on the sign. If one goes by your point then all religious creation stories must be told. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Isn't that an area with a lot of scientist trying to find how life occurred "naturally", through chemical reactions, rather than being created by a god? The thing is that it is here where many people see the scientific method as attacking there particular version of their god. The important thing I have learnt from discussions with people who believe in the supernatural is that to simply not acknowledging the existence of their god is sufficient to 'count as' an attack against their god. This means that not putting their god into every tentative scientific conclusion is tantamount to religious persecution. Do you really want a world where every tentative scientific conclusion has the caveat 'but it could all be done by a supernatural agent'? Edited by Larni, : Ninja'd by Bluescat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
InGodITrust writes:
My faith did not come from weighing the Bible against other religions and science, and then selecting the Bible as the rational choice. My faith came through prayer.How about the origin of life? Isn't that an area with a lot of scientist trying to find how life occurred "naturally", through chemical reactions, rather than being created by a god?
Since your faith originated in prayer and not by selecting the Bible, why does it bother you when rational investigation disproves some of its claims? If your faith does not come from the Bible why would this affect you? Since you still appear to have some misconceptions about science let me explain a bit more about their motivations. Scientists do not go "Lets find a natural explanation for the origin of life as opposed to religion." They instead go "Lets find out how the origin of life came about, by studying the evidence available." Note that there are no assumptions or goals other than the truth. The key is that scientists start with no assumptions or information, and through observation of the world gather information which they then analyze and make conclusions from. God is not part of their hypotheses because they do not observe anything that particularly indicates a god was involved. There is no malice involved, scientists look only in the natural world because it is the only place they can objectively look. As a continuation on the original train of thought, how would you react if whatever communication you get through prayer indicated something that you could plainly view was incorrect? For example, what if your prayer response told you that an apple on your kitchen table was actually a jelly doughnut? Would you still continue to trust it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
Phage, when I was 17, I was at the Rose Parade in Pasadena, Calif., when a Jesus freak came and started preaching to me. He was annoying, but for some reason I didn't want to be rude and tell him to get lost. He rambled on and on about Christ, and finally he said he was going to pray that I would feel God's love. I was thinking, good, he'll leave after this. I don't remember the words, but he prayed for about 1 minute that God would show me His love. And then I was overcome with an indescribable feeling of love. This rapture blindsided me, and lasted a few minutes, and it was a defining event in my life.
I have read the Bible, and do not understand much of it. There are many interpretations and many denominations. But there are number of points that most denominations have in common. And the prayer that showed me the light also makes me accept the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
As Richard Townsend and Perdition wrote, the ground rule among scientists, that the possibility of error is built into science, does not always register with non-scientists. The example of my feelings with the sign at the National Monument is a case of this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
However, when science points to something with 99.9% accuracy, will pointing out that minor possibility of error do anything but confuse people as to how sure scientists are?
Should they have a sign that says, "Don't let your children on the other side of this fence bcause there is a 99.9% chance that your child will fall, though we're not entire sure."?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
InGodITrust writes:
Which Bible? Every Bible is a compilation of separate texts, and many denominations have different texts either included or excluded. In addition almost all of those texts are going to be translations of the original text, and there are multiple versions of the translation which can in certain situations greatly alter their meaning. And the prayer that showed me the light also makes me accept the Bible. You describe an event that would reasonably cause you to think there is something to the Bible, but how was it specific to the particular books and translators? If it wasn't, how can you be sure that you accept *all* of the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
InGodITrust writes:
Why not? Do you consider yourself to be infallible? Do you know of anyone else you, or they, consider to be infallible? That is after all what we are talking about here; it is not a statement that they are uncertain about or they would add qualifiers. They are quite sure that the sun will be here tomorrow, they are quite sure that things will continue to fall down, and they are quite sure that the Earth is much older than the Bible claims. If the sun vanishes and does not return then they will admit they were wrong, just as if the Bible turns out to be right. But it probably isn't, to the extent that they don't feel the need to mention it.
...that the possibility of error is built into science, does not always register with non-scientists.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024