|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1393 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Perhaps science backs reality, but perhaps not. What if science is stuck in a scenario similar to Plato's cave because it deliberately ignores the supernatural? Science will remain blissfully unaware I suppose. Can you name a single scientific result that has ever demonstrated a supernatural cause for any phenomenon? I can't. Science doesn't ignore the supernatural. It just so happens that science keeps finding non-supernatural causes for the phenomenon we find in nature. If you want to claim that the supernatural has effects on the natural world then it is incumbent on you to evidence these effects. Simply complaining that no one takes your beliefs seriously is not what you should be doing. Don't complain. Do. For example, I spoke of lightning before. How did you rule out the possiblity that Zeus and Thor are really producing those lightning strikes? Are you just ignoring this possibility? What tests and experiments would you run to rule Zeus and Thor out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined: |
Perdition writes: Science is built upon a foundation of naturalism, because otherwise, it can't investigate anything. It has nothing to say about supernatural events or beings, because they cannot be tested. They might exist, and if they did, science would be perfectly happy with that. Science and spirituality can exist peacefully. The issues come in when spiritual or theistic people can't accept the things science says because of their interpretation of their religion. Or when they try to use science to "prove" their religion. Or when they try to force their religion into science classes. If the religious would sit back, have their religion and either embrace the scientific discoveries or not, no one would care one whit. Science isn't out to destroy religion, but it seems some religious people are out to destroy science, and that's where the conflict comes in. I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both. I am not in favor of a religion vs. science dichotomy. While they currently seem diametrically opposed, I think it is more of a paradoxical scenario that is yet to be resolved. I hope it will in the future because I personally believe the 'theory of every thing' will remain a mystery until both purge their flaws and unite. While this seems unlikely, it is still my hope. Maybe a fool's hope. Edited by bridgebuilder, : No reason given. Edited by bridgebuilder, : typos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I think you're confusing what Genesis 1 says and what you personally believe. In Genesis 1, in the beginning, only God and the ocean are mentioned as existing, and many other things are mentioned as being created later. (including the stars, many of which existed long before our planet)
quote: Not really - if they've been vindicated then there wouldn't be anything kooky about believing that they were right.
quote: Maybe so, but any system will be imperfect. The question is how bad it really is. Wegener's ideas were blocked for reasons that were justifiable at the time. And we haven't had any examples from you.
quote: Well the first thing to establish is if the monks can really levitate. Everything I've seen says that no, they can't (except for the weird jumping about of "yogic flying"). And if they can't then there is nothing to study. So, let's get the unexplained phenomena demonstrated properly before we talk about studying it or making bizarre speculations about how it might work. Actually I find it very odd that you wouldn't talk about scientific work that had been rejected and later vindicated because you think that it would make you look kooky (how ?), while going on about "vibrations/brainwaves" "changing magnetic fields" enabling people to "defy gravity". Which is absolutely. definitely kooky.
quote: I've yet to see any way in which it "enlightens knowledge"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
How can anything non-natural be studied?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
BB writes: I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both. What sort of supernatural penomena do you think we should study? I think you should have a read of this thread: Studying the supernatural The OP summarises some of the key problems with your desire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bridgebuilder Member (Idle past 4371 days) Posts: 47 Joined:
|
subbie writes: I must commend you. Like many other creos, you came here with a lot of incorrect ideas, but unlike many, you seem willing to learn. I encourage you to do so. You will find that many of the things you thought were so are not. This may or may not change your belief structure, but at least you will know what you are up against. And it will give you a chance to conform your ideas to reality, always a good thing. Thank you subbie I have learned a tremendous amount in my brief time here. I can only hope that I am sufficiently unique enough to create a forth category of creationists, lol.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
I understand that the natural world is easier to study because the scientific method can be readily applied to discover new data. However, I personally think science is doing itself a disservice by limiting itself to the natural world. Yes, it would complicate things, and the rules of the scientific method would have to change to discover the laws (if there are any) of the super natural realm. I think it would mutually benefit both. Science constrains itself to the natural because it has to. It's called methodological naturalism. As soon as you allow supernatural explanations, the scientific method is blown to hell. If you want to study supernatural things, that's great. What you're doing won't be science, but if you can come up with a method that gives demonstrably true answers, you've just invented a new discipline. If you're convinced this can be done, then do it. You'll be one of the most famous people in the world. What I find interesting is that rather than creating this new discipline, you seem fixated on trying to wedge it into science, whcih would necessitate changing science fundamentally. The way we do science currently works. Proof is that we have cell phones, the internet, space ships, genetically modified food, vehicles, power, an understanding of our far past, etc. Why would you want to destroy that discipline just to study something the discipline was never intended to study?
While they currently seem diametrically opposed, I think it is more of a paradoxical scenario that is yet to be resolved. Science is only diametrically opposed to those who dislike the conclusions that science comes to. Science isn't opposed to religion. Religion, by and large, isn't opposed to science. A few religious groups are opposed to science. Those are the people that need to be informed about the way science works (because they are largely ignorant of it), or they need to be told to keep their wacko ideas to themselves. There is no conflict except where some force there to be one, and all the force is coming from one side. (Hint: it ain't the science side)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Following on from Catholic Scientist's comment: you don't need to reply to all comments - particularly if it is just a single sentence reply.
This post is a good example - all it really needs is an acknowledgement.This acknowledgement can be made by simply clicking the sentence You have not yet responded and it will change to You have acknowledged this reply This sentence will be at the bottom of my post. Hopefully this is useful to you.Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How can anything non-natural be studied? I don't see why not. If Buddhist monks really could fly, we could go and watch them do it, and if that was supernatural, we'd be studying a supernatural thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not really.
What you would be studying is flying monks (or nuns). To say that you are studying the supernatural is to place the conclusion before the investigation.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Knowing that you do not know is the first step on the path to wisdom, grasshopper. You have begun your journey.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What you would be studying is flying monks (or nuns). To say that you are studying the supernatural is to place the conclusion before the investigation. I didn't say they were. I said that if they were, we could still study them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Bullshit.
How do you study "supernatural?"Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Bullshit. How do you study "supernatural?" Until there is evidence of supernatural how would we know? Impossible to study that which does not exist, but if it did exist maybe we could. Won't know until someone shows the supernatural.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How do you study "supernatural?" Well, if the monks were doing something supernatural, then studying them doing it would be studying the supernatural. Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024