Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ground Rules
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 12 of 68 (513481)
06-29-2009 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phage0070
06-26-2009 11:22 AM


Phage0070 writes:
quote:
We can, and for proper conclusions should, make absolute statements about things in the appropriate circumstances.
...
quote:
Because of this I suggest the argument against absolute statements about gods is invalid because it attempts to damage an argument through selectively restating ground rules.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phage0070, posted 06-26-2009 11:22 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 68 (513573)
06-30-2009 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Hyroglyphx
06-29-2009 10:44 AM


Hyroglyphx writes:
quote:
Because when the Pilgrims fled England their families for several generations were forced to agree and practice the Church of England's or the Roman Catholic Church's brand of religion. Dogma replaced doctrine and a few people realized that. When Martin Luther posted his famous dictum on the church doors it sparked a revolution that carried on to America.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-29-2009 10:44 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2009 8:28 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 68 (513981)
07-03-2009 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hyroglyphx
06-30-2009 8:28 AM


Hyroglyphx responds to me:
quote:
The first Colonials established the colonies so they can run a theocracy? Please verify this.
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:
If they did it was most likely either British citizens loyal to the king or Colonists who held Anglican religious views.
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:
The religious freedoms come from the fallout of the tremendous intolerance that was the hallmark of England.
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:
The point is still the same.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-30-2009 8:28 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 47 of 68 (513983)
07-03-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by InGodITrust
07-01-2009 3:27 AM


InGodITrust responds to Phage0070:
quote:
Phage, I hold steadfast to my faith. I have had doubts from time to time, but keep returning to the belief that God exists.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by InGodITrust, posted 07-01-2009 3:27 AM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 48 of 68 (513984)
07-03-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by InGodITrust
07-01-2009 3:47 AM


InGodITrust writes:
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by InGodITrust, posted 07-01-2009 3:47 AM InGodITrust has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 49 of 68 (513986)
07-03-2009 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Phage0070
07-01-2009 8:08 AM


Phage0070 writes:
quote:
God is not part of their hypotheses because they do not observe anything that particularly indicates a god was involved.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Phage0070, posted 07-01-2009 8:08 AM Phage0070 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 07-03-2009 9:59 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 54 of 68 (514215)
07-04-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Phage0070
07-03-2009 9:59 AM


Phage0070 responds to me:
quote:
I don't agree, at least not in the specific manner you stated that science wants to avoid people in particular.
Well, no. Not, "in particular." Science wants to remove uncontrolled capriciousness in order to examine what happens when things happen on their own.
quote:
In the same way that your assistant is prevented from messing with the container, you also prevent squirrels from peeing in it, or it simply being rained on.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Phage0070, posted 07-03-2009 9:59 AM Phage0070 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024