Present arguments for your trust in science, without using your scientific texts...

http://xkcd.com/242/



Excellent post, by the way.

 

That was indeed a straight forward and seemingly honest response to the OP.. I appreciate that. Now, the response also begs the question of what is "untrue"?

 

What you just said begs the question of what is a "ballbuster."

Untrue? Well, since the prefix "un" is followed by the word "true", it means "not true" as in "the opposite of what is true" as in "if something is true, then it is not untrue" or "if something is untrue, or not true, then it is not true."

Oh, also, you're using the phrase incorrectly. From wiki:

"Many English speakers use "begs the question" to mean "raises the question", and follow that phrase with the question that is raised;[11] for example, "this year's deficit is half a trillion dollars, which begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?" Many philosophers and grammarians deem such usage incorrect.[12][13] Academic linguist Mark Liberman recommends avoiding the phrase entirely.[14]"

 

Why is a source necessary? A text is needed to teach emotion or empathy?

Very simple put, do onto others as you would have them do onto you. The golden rule. While religion may tote it as one of its teachings, it far surpasses any religious text. If we followed the moral code of the bible for instance, slavery would be permissible.

Yes the balance of the natural world is hard to accept, it is often brutal and savage.

However, modern civilization has transcended that reality. We no longer forage and hunt for food. We drive to a restaurant and have a steak.

I was speaking of mans knowledge of his eco system. The conservation of species, the knowledge we gain from exploring the natural world through science.

I never suggested it was.

However, morality is not derived from religion either.

Morality is a changing issues, it shifts with the ebb and tide of the culture. That is quite apparent from out knowledge of history.

Once upon a time the catholic church searched out and burned witches at the stake. These days they are acknowledging the validity of the evolutionary theory. See how morality shifts over time?

 

This makes no sense. Science is inherently secular. As such, how could there be a "secular agenda"?

 

Funny, thats the thing a lot of religious people seem to ignore the most.. that and the whole "no sex before marriage or masturbation" thing.

 

Religion is a security blanket for many.

Something to cling to in the face of their own mortality. The idea of a paradise after death for the simple price of parroting a few words of conviction is to good to turn down.

Some, however, truly do believe and have profound religious conviction. For them it is a driving cause and can be a beacon of hope and goodness.

It all depends on the person.

 

Im the former. Im gonna learn the last rites of every major and minor religion and recite them all right before I die. Just in case.

 

Again. Read the OP real close. The focus of this thread is a counter challenge relating to science. Whereas another poster initiated a thread that focused on the omission of religious texts (the Bible). Notice in that other thread, very few responses were made when such restraint was made against 'religious' texts. But this one.... WOW... It appears that when the foundation of science is attacked, with the same force, the thread is immediately infested with those who are objecting to such tactic. Fair is fair. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

As for your conclusion. Sheer speculation. Based on an unknown.

Again, subjective.

Good point, as science is not a sentient being, therefore, it is indeed the scientists who act according to their subjective consciousness and subsequently their findings are subjective.

Likewise with those that are in opposition to religion; those others will attempt to analyze religion based on scientific tools which are not applicable to religious issues.

Please show where 'creationism' has been injected into any scientific research document.

Everything being discussed here is semantics. Word play. Of which you are also guilty. Debate is an art of semantics.

Some have found that way, others are still searching.

Science does not have the capacity to dis-spell or dismiss anything. Only people (scientists) have that capacity. As for those things that are supposed to be detected and 'recreated'.... I have yet to see where scientists have detected and (much less) recreated the 'birth of the universe'. The scientists have failed in that regard.

 

I've tested enough scientific ideas to believe them.

You (and atheists) have this idea that science and religion are in opposition. They are not. Science concerns itself with the natural world. Religion concerns itself with the supernatural world. Two separate areas.

 

Really? Newton's second law of motion basically states that Force equals Mass times Acceleration. It says nothing about falling objects.

 

You were reading the mind of Newton at the time that he 'thought it up on his own"? Interesting. Do you have any proof of that claim? No you don't... that is why I have restricted this thread to not using scientific texts. You cannot prove what others did in their minds. Now stick with the OP.

Notice all the words of uncertainty that you have used. You simply don't know,,,, do you?

 

Excellent in the fact that it points out his uncertainty about things, including Newton.

 

Who mentioned 'ball buster"? No body but you. So if you perceive the question I presented as a 'ball buster', then perhaps that is a message to you indicating your need to start looking for an answer to the question.

Very good. Now if you have not noticed, there is a thread entitled "what is Truth" in which the OP emphasizes 'what is the religious meaning of 'truth'.

I am impressed with your use of the 'wiki' source. I too sometimes use that source when I am looking for a 'socially acceptable' answer to a musing. However, and most on this forum will agree, that though wiki is a fast search tool that gives general information, it is by no means, the official source for any specific topic other than the topic of "wiki". Thanks for that input though. My statement remains as it was and is.

 

Very good. You question the previous poster as to "Why is a source necessary? A text is needed to teach emotion or empathy?" and then you proceed to almost exactly quote the scripture as an example of how to conduct your affairs. What is the source of the example you used? To wit: "do onto others as you would have them do unto you."? Slavery is still practiced today. You (if you are a US citizen) are a slave to the tyranny imposed by the legislature. You may not like those laws, but you are required to abide by those laws, else suffer the penalty imposed by those laws. You are a slave to 'society'.

Indeed it is. So much for secular society and the whimsical morality posed by society.

Modern civilization: push a button and wipe out thousands of people who may or may not have anything to do with the cause that motivated one to push that button. Civilized ... Indeed.

Conservation of species: planning for Nuclear holocaust. Yeah right.

Once upon a time, Hitlers regime searched out and gassed or mutilated thousands of Jews. Once upon a time, the US military used smart bombs and annihilated hundreds of innocent women and children in the middle east. It is called war. So what point are you trying to make? Do you KNOW a system that will work to eliminate such atrocities?

 

Your own words gives the answer. The agenda of science is by default "secular", hence anything that science undertakes is secular and is part of that secular agenda.

 

Still waiting for you to explain how doctors successfully performing heart surgeries, certain chemicals blowing up when combined, and what another poster pointed out, which is the fact we are all using COMPUTERS, does not show science has been practically successful...I'll keep waiting.

 

The premise of this thread is an unknowable, people can't selectively forget knowledge of reality.

The path of science through the ages points clearly to the fact that advances in science follow the curiosity and thirst for understanding that is innate in humanity. People aren't satisfied with "a deity did it."

In the absence of written history oral passage of knowledge is all that's left. Oral history changes with each new telling. Religion passed through word of mouth alone would have a different story ever new generation or two.

While this is true, the peer review process works to weed out these subjective and unscientific assertions.

The scientific method is designed to prevent and disqualify poorly crafted science.

I thought science was supposed to be seeking to unlock religious secrets?

Why should they be separate?

Personally I would think that evidence of the way in which a deity might have created or crafted the universe would be solid analytical proof for the validity of religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

Of Pandas and People, a book written to extol the merits of intelligent design.

I also would like to mention intelligent design was the center of many court cases after it was pushed into science curriculum in public schools around the nation. What was found? That the book, dressed as science, was no more than creationism under another title. In fact there were mistakes within the book, that although its creators thought were edited out, that direction referenced intelligent design as "creationism."

This was a rather bold attempt as injecting creationism into science classes of public school children.

What is "that way?" I would like to know it myself. I'd like to communicate with a deity.

A god of the gaps argument does not refute the entirety of science.

Though we don't have all the answers, we don't throw out what we do know and credit it all to a deity.

 

The old argument from ignorance never goes away huh? You can't answer how everything works, therefore the answer must be God. To me, it's either an unknowable answer, or one that will take much longer to investigate. It bugs me when people don't consider their epistemic position in the world (what can we know based on current knowledge) when arguing for or against a claim. If I lived when Jesus did, I'd think the idea of an airplane would sound like science fiction to me! Supernatural claims could be true, but I'm doubtful whether we can claim to KNOW them.

 

Keep waiting,,, as all of what you have requested is dependent upon scientific texts. You are asking me to violate the terms of the OP. Not happening.

 

The golden rule is far from religious. It is a simple human construct. Treat others as you would like to be treated.

No religion required for that.

Secular society?

And the morality of theist society...is superior?

Come now, stop pretending.

Humans beings have been killing one another through military means since one industrious individual sharpened a stick into a spear.

You know what else? Humanity has been abhorring violence since then as well.

Meanwhile science has given us cures and vaccines for deadly diseases that at one point threatened to wipe out entire generations.

Never heard of green peace? Save the whales? World Wild Life Foundation?

You dismiss humanities goodness so easily?

Perhaps you are a pessimist.

Once upon a time the catholic empire annihilated indigenous peoples of south america, north america, canada, europe.

Once upon a time religious extremists waged war across the middle east.

Do you know of a system that will bring world peace?

 

How is it dependent?

 

You have already violated your OP. You're on a computer, posting on the internet, asserting that individuals users premises violate the OP.

You're using a root form of logic. Meaning you are using established scientific theory, I.E. logic which is an off shoot of philosophy.

Again, I point out that one can not have a debate without using science.

 

No one has asked anyone to 'forget knowledge'. The OP merely requests that arguments be formed without the aid of scientific texts. As for things that are 'unknowable': your submission that there are things that are 'unknowable' immediately places science at a disadvantage, as; if something is 'unknowable' (a positive claim when stated that something is unknowable) then the subject itself is unknowable and therefore cannot be expressed even as something that is 'unknowable'. Circular logic on the part of someone making the claim that something is 'unknowable'.

Correction: Some people are not satisfied with "a deity did it."

The oral passage of knowledge amounts to hear say. Religion, again, is not the subject of this thread. Not using Scientific texts is the challenge that is set by the OP.

In other words, peer review amounts to those that have a vested interest in the subject being scrutinized by those who conduct the peer review. So, there is immediate bias, when religious matters impact the opinions of scientists who conduct the peer review.

And who has suggested that Science and Religion are on equal footing and that Religion should be subject to scientific analysis?

Don't know where you got that piece of information.

If you think that they should not be separate, then you place a burden on Science to prove either the existence or non-existence of God.

Might have is not proof.

Your reliance on material such as the above, clearly shows that you are not capable of presenting an argument without the use of scientific texts.

And my use of this thread, eliminating the use of scientific texts is based on the same conclusions. Science is not permitted in the discussion of religion.

As is the injection of scientific texts into a religious discussion.

I have given that information in previous threads. But will give it again.
1 John 4: 1 - 3. That is a good starting point.

And science by a far cry does not refute the existence of God.

 

Right, the ones who want to know whether or not an event is a natural occurrence or is brought about by divine providence.

Thank you for admitting that without written documents religion would indeed not be what it is today.

Not at all. The peer review process relies on numbers. Multiple scientist must review and reproduce the experiments and outcome. It's a strenuous process that is tailored to get honest, factual, and re-creatable results. In this way it seeks to remove as much bias as possible.

No one said they were on equal footing.

As for religion being subject to scientific inquiry, all things are.

Agree or not people have and will always put religion up to the light of the scientific method. That is their right, just as it is yours to dismiss such attempts.

I got it right here, in this thread, from you.

Here's the quote.

It appeared to me you were saying that science should seeking to understand the divine.

Why would that be?

The faithful make the claim of the existence of god. Science does not.

Science simply seeks to understand occurrences. Even if the existence of a deity was proven true, science would not seek to know that deity. Rather it would seek to understand its origin, make up, how it creates, controls, or manipulates the matter of the world.

Your point? No one said science has all the answers.

I cited a religious text, not a science text.

Whether or not you agree with it, science is indeed permitted in the discussion of religion.

I understand you point with this thread.

However, one can not simply will away the other side of a debate.

Perhaps for the purposes of this thread, but outside of it, it just isn't going to happen.

There will always be differences of opinion on the matter.

A nice passage. To me however it speaks more toward choosing leaders within the faith that stay true to the message of christ, rather than prayer.

I would tend to agree. Science simply hasn't found any evidence for the existence of a deity.

Neither can religion present evidence for the existence of deity.

Thus it is up to the individual to decide which stance they choose to take.