Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism IS a 'Cult'ural Movement!
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 31 of 188 (375317)
01-08-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Straggler
01-08-2007 10:28 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
straggler writes:
I would maintain that science cannot disprove God any more than it can disprove leprechauns.
However it could potentially (and I believe to a large extent already has) relieve God of any physical role and therefore the need for any gods or other supernatural beings of any sort.
I'm not sure that I would agree that the need is not necessary (being a believer and all) but I would agree with you that I don't need to fear going to a Doctor who is an unbeliever because I fear that his knowledge about how to help me take care of my body is unconnected to the Creator as a source.
I trust that the Doc understands germs and biochemical reactions and my diseases and how bodies work fairly well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 10:47 AM Phat has not replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 188 (375318)
01-08-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Phat
01-08-2007 10:19 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
Thanks for your reply. Lets keep within the original topic as much as we can, here.
You asked the question. Let's not do the subtle thing where we dismiss another's thinking because it doesn't fit the topic. Because this is a microcosm of the science-in-school thing where we can't teach creationism because it's not science so it has to be taught in some other classroom. Doesn't matter whether it's true or not.
So I think I mentioned briefly the basic approach the creationist must take to see if he is right: He must see if the available evidence fits the theory. We don't have the option of replicating creation, you know?
So here's some sample evidence/thinking:
1) If there is a creator, has he revealed himself. One obvious possibility is the Bible. Does it fit the known facts? Like if you extrapolate a graph of human population growth does it seem like it might correspond with the Genesis 1 account? You've got other evidences for the Bible like archeological confirmation and fulfilled prophecies.
2) Do we see evidence of intelligent design in nature. If there is a God we would recognize him rather than discover him, so do we see an image of our own intelligence in nature. Obviously yes, what we call life is almost infinitely beyond anything that we could do on purpose. Those who try to find flaws in the design of life only embarrass themselves with their lack of design savvy (I'm an engineer).
3) The evidence of my own consciousness, which is really the first and most reliable evidence any of us have. It's not really relevant whether there is a physical basis for consciousness, which there obviously is. If it is true that I am capable of objective thought, which I must assume I am, how is that possible. It cannot be explained *merely* as physical phenomena or else I am not capable of objective thought, only conditional response.
So how you approach this sort of thing is dependant on whether you really want to know the truth or not. I'm sure the most of you have been sufficiently indoctrinated in the scientific method that you can win the debate class, but you may not know where the party is going to be this weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 10:19 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 10:50 AM TheMystic has replied
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM TheMystic has replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 188 (375320)
01-08-2007 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
01-08-2007 10:17 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
OK, so if I wanted to study why a certain disease afflicts some people and not others, how can I use your method to figure out why this is happening?
Oh, and would you make people sick on purpose so you could replicate your experiments and call it the scientific method? See, the method must fit the question. You might make animals sick but on the humans you'd try to decipher the existing data.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 10:17 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 11:12 AM TheMystic has replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 188 (375321)
01-08-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
01-08-2007 10:26 AM


Re: Repeat after me
Ever hear of the Scopes trial?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 10:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 01-08-2007 10:51 AM TheMystic has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 35 of 188 (375322)
01-08-2007 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Phat
01-08-2007 10:36 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
I must admit I was more thinking of a physical role in the creation, evolution, formation of the universe, existence of the soul etc. etc. rather than the more day to day involvement you discuss.
However I do not claim that science has provided explanations for all of these things merely that the scientific method is the best way we have of exploring these things and that the conclusions may well remove the need for any physical involvement from any supernatural being.
It is this that I think Mystic is confusing with a desire on the part of science to "disprove" God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Phat, posted 01-08-2007 10:36 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 36 of 188 (375324)
01-08-2007 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
So you are an engineer. If you and a group of engineers are working on designing a large project, is it important whether or not all of the engineers are believers? In other words, could an unbelieving engineer be capable of constructing a bridge, for example?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:40 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 12:30 PM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 188 (375325)
01-08-2007 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Repeat after me
Ever hear of the Scopes trial?
Every hear the verdict in the Scopes trial? LOL
Please read what I write and respond to it.
jar writes:
Please provide links to the peer reviewed studies on the existence of GOD.
Are you willing to step through a thought experiment with me?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:47 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 12:30 PM jar has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 188 (375326)
01-08-2007 10:52 AM


Back to the topic...
I concur with Modulous that the digression onto the scientific method is probably not on-topic. The OP asserts that creationism is like a cult movement in that it's central authorities (Answers in Genesis is the example) provide articles of faith to which cult members are expected to adhere. The moondust argument was the example Jon offers, where AIG encourages creationists to no longer use the moondust argument.
But these aren't articles of faith. They're offered as scientific positions that at best should be understood because of the arguments and evidence behind them, but that at worst can be learned by rote. We all learn lots of scientific facts by rote, like that water freezes at 32F, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Also, regarding cults, Jon doesn't seem to be applying the term in the same way I think of it. The critical component of religions that become cults is their brainwashing aspect, and Jon's examples seem more like just evangelical religion behaving like it always does rather than behaving as a cult.
--Percy

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 188 (375327)
01-08-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Straggler
01-08-2007 10:47 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
...merely that the scientific method is the best way we have of exploring these things
It is this that I think Mystic is confusing with a desire on the part of science to "disprove" God.
No, my point is that there is no such thing as the 'scientific method'. I have to overstate the case a little because it definitely is a religious thing to a lot of you guys. It's like walking into a church and saying "I don't believe the Bible" and people start quoting verses from the Bible to prove you wrong. So to the original point of the thread, if creationism is a cult, science is every bit as much so. If you're going to dispute me, please argue from outside of science, since science is the question here (to me - I don't believe in it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 10:47 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 11:15 AM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 45 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 11:16 AM TheMystic has not replied
 Message 53 by iceage, posted 01-08-2007 1:05 PM TheMystic has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 188 (375328)
01-08-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:40 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
Is it science with no prediction, no refutation (please correct me if there ever has been a creationist prediction or refuted experiment of any sort)and conclusions made in the absence of any physical evidence (for which creationists then desperately seek physical confirmation)
When conclusions come before evidence it is the very antithesis of science.
1) There are many holy books and many gods. Yours is no more likley or evidence based than any other.
2) We see evidence for evolution and natural laws
3) I am not sure how you conclude that a physical basis for consciousness necessarily results in some kind of unthinking responsive automaton?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:40 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 11:01 AM Straggler has replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 188 (375331)
01-08-2007 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
01-08-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
3) I am not sure how you conclude that a physical basis for consciousness necessarily results in some kind of unthinking responsive automaton?
You'd have to tell me how it's anything other than conditional response. Your eyes see patterns on your computer screen and through a very complex electro-chemical series of reactions your fingers press keys on your keyboard. Is it something more than that, and if so, what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2007 11:29 AM TheMystic has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 42 of 188 (375333)
01-08-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:44 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
OK, so if I wanted to study why a certain disease afflicts some people and not others, how can I use your method to figure out why this is happening?
quote:
Oh, and would you make people sick on purpose so you could replicate your experiments and call it the scientific method?
Er, no, but I might make rats sick on purpose.
The point is, you said that you have a method that is different from the scientific method that Creationists use to understand nature.
How can I use it to try to solve the problem I stated above?
quote:
See, the method must fit the question. You might make animals sick but on the humans you'd try to decipher the existing data.
How would we use the non-science, Creationist's method to address the question?
Can you lay it out for me in a basic, step by step form?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:44 AM TheMystic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 11:16 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 43 of 188 (375334)
01-08-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
No, my point is that there is no such thing as the 'scientific method'. I have to overstate the case a little because it definitely is a religious thing to a lot of you guys.
Yes there is, and I already provided an overview of it in this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM TheMystic has not replied

  
TheMystic
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 188 (375335)
01-08-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by nator
01-08-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
I know there's a few responses to me out there, but I've got to run and do some paying work. Later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by nator, posted 01-08-2007 11:12 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 188 (375336)
01-08-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by TheMystic
01-08-2007 10:55 AM


Re: Scientific method is not sacred
quote:
If you're going to dispute me, please argue from outside of science, since science is the question here (to me - I don't believe in it).
You don't believe in science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by TheMystic, posted 01-08-2007 10:55 AM TheMystic 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