|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ground Rules | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 writes:
quote: ...
quote: So are you saying we can make absolute statements about gods? There are many people who claim, "You can't prove a negative." But, in fact, you can. In fact, that's one of the big things in science: Proving that something isn't true. It's one of the big ways in which science progresses: When we know that certain things aren't true, it guides us toward more accurate things. In fact, science never gets to prove positives. It can only prove negatives. Now, the ability to prove negatives requires that well-defined objects behave in well-defined ways. Is god such a beast? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: This is one of those lovely little myths about America: That the Pilgrims came here to escape persecution and valued religious freedom. In reality, the reason the Pilgrims came here is because they were much more insistent upon religious purity than the British and Dutch societies they came from. They came to the colonies because they would be free to establish what was essentially a theocracy. The Quakers were essentially run out of Massachusetts under threat of death. Even Virginia enacted capital punishment upon Quakers. The protections we have for religious freedom came from the fallout of the tremendous intolerance that was the hallmark of the original colonies. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx responds to me:
quote: This is basic history. Go look it up. I don't happen to have my 10th grade American History book with me. One of the big themes of the Puritan religion was that god was the controller of all life. This is where the concept of "Puritanical" meaning a strict, religious moral code encompassing all areas of life comes from. Have you not seen the original charters of some of the colonies and their restrictions on religious practice? Again, the Quakers were run out of Massachusetts on threat of death. Look up the history of Mary Dyer and the Boston martyrs.
quote: Incorrect. They were the American colonists. The laws in Massachusetts were passed by the colonists (albeit narrowly). Now, it's true that Quakerism was widely persecuted both in England and the Colonies, but the reason that Pennsylvania exists is because of the persecution that came at the hands of colonists. William Penn established it so that Quakers could have a place to worship without being killed for it.
quote: Incorrect. England passed the Toleration Act in 1689. Now, Rhode Island had religious freedom as a founding principle, but the idea that the American colonies were these bastions of religious freedom as a rule simply isn't true.
quote: No, it isn't. The American tradition of religious freedom came at a cost. It was not there from the beginning. We had to learn why it was important. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
InGodITrust responds to Phage0070:
quote: That isn't an answer. You were asked if it were possible that you were wrong. Scientists clearly think that our current models are accurate, though they can give you dozens of reasons how they might be proven wrong. While they can show you all the ways which justify why we think we know what we know, that doesn't stop them from considering the possibility that they're wrong. Is it possible that you're wrong about your beliefs? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
InGodITrust writes:
quote: How does that equate to atheism? Are you saying that the only possible way for god to exist is to have god be the creator of life? Have you considered the possibility that god does exist but not in the way you think? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 writes:
quote: Sorta. Science also seeks to remove people from the equation. Clearly, people exist, but the point of science is to find out how things happen on their own. If I take two moles of hydrogen gas and one mole of oxygen gas and mix them at STP, it does me no good to leave it unobserved while I go to lunch and then come back astounded to find that the canister now has water in it, never bothering to ask my assistant, "Did you do something to the canister?" The denial of other people isn't a claim that they don't exist. It's that other people are capricious and fickle and we cannot rely upon their actions. The idea is not to find out what happens to the gases when we let somebody we can't control play with them. The idea is to find out what happens to the gases when they are left to their own devices. As you say, "There is no malice involved, scientists look only in the natural world because it is the only place they can objectively look." It isn't a question of "no evidence." It's that they are deliberately avoiding actions beyond thost that happen on their own. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 responds to me:
quote: Well, no. Not, "in particular." Science wants to remove uncontrolled capriciousness in order to examine what happens when things happen on their own.
quote: Exactly. The reason that I mention people specifically is that it personalizes the point. The claim is that science wants to "remove god" as if science has some sort of vendetta against god. Well, no. Science also wants to remove you from the equation, too, and it isn't out of some sort of malice against you or claim that you don't exist. It's that if the reason why something happened is because you did it, that doesn't really tell us anything. Suppose we want to examine how small, short cylindrical, metal tokens interact with various surfaces or, in more colloquial terms, what happens when you toss a handful of coins on the floor. So, I'll want to actually release them and let them interact with the floor on their own, no interference from me. It doesn't teach us anything if I come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place the coins on the floor. I need to remove myself from the equation in order to learn about how the objects behave on their own. And of course, as you point out, you put in other controls. If I have a giant fan blowing that tosses the coins up against the wall, that complicates things. My point is in response to the argument that science's refusal to consider the work of god on something is taken as some sort of attack upon god and a claim that god doesn't exist. Well, science also does the same thing to you and me. Surely that isn't an indication that science thinks you and I don't exist. It's simply that science wants to find out what happens when you and I aren't forcing things. That, of course, leads to the question that nobody ever answers: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? When I toss the coins on the floor, do they wind up in their final positions all on their own or does god come down and personally, deliberately, and consciously place them? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024