Yeah? Lol, tell that to a black hole...lol
Your knowledge in science is weak. Mine in engineering isn't...
Can belief in a higher power be combined with Evolution
- Thread starter keithzworld
- Start date
Your knowledge in science is weak. Mine in engineering isn't...
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Your belligerence is showing.
And your ignorance precedes you.
I know I know, I'm a Christian...I'm also a Celt...
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Please explain, oh wise one, how I am ignorant in the following conversation?
bob x
Well-Known Member
False. We have also observed speciation. Speciation is a "fact" not a postulate or a theory.
Kasavubu
Member
Indeed, because we still can't explain why it changes with circumstances...is it attraction, or repulsion, and when is which, which? How, why, when?...
case in point: How can one suspend a particle in an electromagnetic "bottle", if gravity is present?
We can observe evolution. We must observe it over its time span, which is far longer than the lifespan of a talking bipedal ape called Human. We use paleontology, chemistry, geology, genetics and accurate age determination of fossils. The Fossil record clearly shows the changes in stages and parts over long times of all major living animal groups. We know that by genetic marker rates that Humans and Chimps have a common ancestor bout 6 to 7 million years ago. The DNA evidence is convincing. Fossils show a series of hominids with slight anatomical variants from Ardipithecus to Homo sapiens sapiens. There is the stepwise growth of the hominid brain case.
We know from when new hominids evolved, there was some major change in climate, environmental (forest, savannah, or open grasslands), wet and dry periods corresponding to Ice Ages, changes in ocean currents and even volcanic events like Mt. Toba. We know that humans produced many offspring of which only a few survived. This is natural selection. There may have also been social selection, selection by ideals of human facial beauty, skin color by sunshine levels.
We can observe shorter time evolution in the appearance of a new species of salmon in my region. Imported Goats Beard plant evolved in American historical time into three new species adapted to different environments.
Sure, there are many items of fact still unknown in evolution. However, Evolution is a fact. Gravity may be a theory but the laws of gravity are facts. The Spherical Earth is a fact observed by satellite. Theories of how the Earth accreted are theories with the best explanations well described. We know the fact that Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Not a theory, but a fact. It is proven by highly accurate constants such as radioisotope decay rates, dating of the oldest rocks.
Evolution is the fact of primates evolving into apes, one branch of apes developing bipedal gait and moved out on the grasslands where upright posture, freedom of hand use, and challenges of grassland survival led to increasingly larger and complex human brains. Human embryos have a chordate stage like Amphioxus, gill slits and a tail. They go through a stage anatomically compatible with amphibians, later reptiles, and tailed primitive mammals. Human babies can be born with a relict gill cleft or an external tail, or heavy body hair. We still have the genes of our past ancestors.
Creationism cannot be called a theory or a hypothesis because it is not based on a nanogram of evidence. It thus must be classified as mythology or made up fairy tales. Admit that Genesis is a fairy tale. You still do not have to give up believing in god or gods.
Gravity is real. The speed of light is real. Light-years are an astronomical measurement. This shows that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old (possibly older if it exists beyond the Light-year apparent limit.
Why do superstitious believers feel that science or reality cannot coexist with their particular god(s)?
Kasavubu
Modern Primitive
Intellect Reincarnation
Yes it can. I believe in a God that exists within the dream reality, our inner self, and His name is Morpheus. In this world we have evolved.
We need more Celts ...I know I know, I'm a Christian...I'm also a Celt...
What is also a 'fact' is that the Post-Modern world is showing increasingly more signs of a cultural psychiatric disorder along the lines of schizophrenia.
The main and debilitating problem with schizophrenia is disassociation with the world, an inability to read the meaning of things, be they facial expressions, body language, even language itself ... intuition, insight, empathy, association, all are missing in the schizophrenic, and replaced with a commentary that 're-presents' the data of experience according to the degree of the illness.
The schizophrenic cannot perceive 'depth', and sees the world in a 2-dimensional plane, in fact the world is as real as the reflection in a mirror or the picture on a TV screen. Essentially, the world is not real ...
So I absolutely agree that 'creationism', the idea that God made the world some 4,000 years ago, and did so to give the appearance of something billions of years old, is just further evidence of cultural schizophrenia.
But I absolutely disagree that science, and by science I mean an absolute reliance on empirical data as the only source of meaningful information from the phenomenal world, has the authority to comment on all and everything outside its particular axiomatic sphere.
How such a science, who's validity rests on the mass of empirical data it has accrued, can say anything about that which, by definition, lies beyond the empirical, escapes me ... or rather, the only logical, rational conclusion I can draw is there is something not quite right deep within its reasoning.
In short, by the very axioms it stands on, empirical science can and should have nothing to say about whether or not God or a Higher Power exists, any more than it does about the value of poetry. What it can do is present arguments to certain naive assumptions ... that we should question and interrogate what we mean by 'God' in the same way we do 'gravity' or 'matter', but not that we should simply refuse to accept any experience that is not empirically determinable.
And, moreover, science might do better by addressing their questions to contemporary theological discussion rather than, which is invariably my experience, trying to argue against a theological position that is frankly simple-minded or medieval in their outlook. (Dawkins scuppered his own reputation by proceeding along those lines.)
I wish scientists made as much effort to keep pace with contemporary theology as contemporary theologians keep pace with science ... perhaps that's why there are notable contributions from religious to the scientific debate, whilst next to none from scientists with regard to theological discussion.
But let me return to my premise.
If evolution, by the observation of the evidence over time, can be considered a theory so evidenced as to be a fact, and personally I accept its findings and treat the theory as reliable and dependable, then by the same token I am obliged to accept that Post-Modern culture, or rather the direction of development in the West that we call 'progress', is in fact the unfolding of culture-wide schizophrenia.
The evidence is clear, empirical, reliable and compelling.
It's a fact.
God bless and keep us all,
Thomas
The main and debilitating problem with schizophrenia is disassociation with the world, an inability to read the meaning of things, be they facial expressions, body language, even language itself ... intuition, insight, empathy, association, all are missing in the schizophrenic, and replaced with a commentary that 're-presents' the data of experience according to the degree of the illness.
The schizophrenic cannot perceive 'depth', and sees the world in a 2-dimensional plane, in fact the world is as real as the reflection in a mirror or the picture on a TV screen. Essentially, the world is not real ...
So I absolutely agree that 'creationism', the idea that God made the world some 4,000 years ago, and did so to give the appearance of something billions of years old, is just further evidence of cultural schizophrenia.
But I absolutely disagree that science, and by science I mean an absolute reliance on empirical data as the only source of meaningful information from the phenomenal world, has the authority to comment on all and everything outside its particular axiomatic sphere.
How such a science, who's validity rests on the mass of empirical data it has accrued, can say anything about that which, by definition, lies beyond the empirical, escapes me ... or rather, the only logical, rational conclusion I can draw is there is something not quite right deep within its reasoning.
In short, by the very axioms it stands on, empirical science can and should have nothing to say about whether or not God or a Higher Power exists, any more than it does about the value of poetry. What it can do is present arguments to certain naive assumptions ... that we should question and interrogate what we mean by 'God' in the same way we do 'gravity' or 'matter', but not that we should simply refuse to accept any experience that is not empirically determinable.
And, moreover, science might do better by addressing their questions to contemporary theological discussion rather than, which is invariably my experience, trying to argue against a theological position that is frankly simple-minded or medieval in their outlook. (Dawkins scuppered his own reputation by proceeding along those lines.)
I wish scientists made as much effort to keep pace with contemporary theology as contemporary theologians keep pace with science ... perhaps that's why there are notable contributions from religious to the scientific debate, whilst next to none from scientists with regard to theological discussion.
But let me return to my premise.
If evolution, by the observation of the evidence over time, can be considered a theory so evidenced as to be a fact, and personally I accept its findings and treat the theory as reliable and dependable, then by the same token I am obliged to accept that Post-Modern culture, or rather the direction of development in the West that we call 'progress', is in fact the unfolding of culture-wide schizophrenia.
The evidence is clear, empirical, reliable and compelling.
It's a fact.
God bless and keep us all,
Thomas
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
By all means then, present the evidence.
Kasavubu
Member
I agree with most of that.
Scientific method is the best way to evaluate real observed phenomena. The phenomena are the facts or realities. Theories are the best explanations based on evidence, to explain the observed facts. We know that animal and plant life on Earth evolved. That is factual. We know it is real because of comparative anatomy in branches of the tree of life. We know by DNA coding that we evolved. We compare the anatomy of lines of similar but different kinds of animals and plants by hard stone details called fossils.
God is a speculation not a fact. We cannot see God. We cannot test God. We cannot compare God to other invisible undetectable speculative ideas. We cannot deny God anymore than we can deny space aliens.
Science really cannot say anything about a purely mental concept that cannot be observed, perceived, measured, or tested in any way. Some of the current discussions of mathematics indicating other dimensions, tiny worm-holes, and much of quantum mechanics are not hard science. They are more than religious belief (delusion), but less than hard science. These would be in the field of Philosophy. They are philosophical hypotheses.
Empirical science cannot say anything about gods, higher powers, ghosts, mental telepathy, psychokinesis, souls, heaven, or hell. Scientists must be agnostics regarding those unprovable beliefs. We cannot study gods in any way like we can study gravity. Gravity is detectable, measurable, while acceleration in gravity can be defined by mathematics. Nothing can be said about God other than speculative or imaginative ideas. Prophets are unreliable and conflict with other prophets, many more likely are schizophrenic.
It boils down to irrationality of explaining the unknown with the unknowable. I think Ingersoll said that. It explains virtually every Theism.
Is it sensible to apply scientific method to study that which cannot even be observed, measured, or perceived? God can only be perceived within the same brain that creates it or the gullible who believe it on unreliable authority.
We have a problem with semantics. Evolution is an observed proven fact. It is not a theory. One Theory explaining evolution is the Theory of Natural Selection. Natural selection is rational because we see predators who cull the herbivore herds of the weakest and injured prey. They leave the most successful prey who escape, propagate. Then the predators who are the most successful hunters thrive better and produce more babies. We see animals who have developed physiological changes in response to changes in temperature, rainfall, vegetation, predator tactics, mental strategies for improved survival (bigger brains.)
An observed phenomenon is a fact. The theory is the best scientific explanation of the fact based on evidence and evaluation of that evidence. Theories may change if new evidence indicates a change in the theory.
That is true. However, it does not degrade the value of rational speculation even in the absence of hard evidence. Philosophy allows us to speculate on something that we cannot directly measure. Some ancient Greeks proposed evolution of all living animals from simpler types and others speculated that life began in the sea. This could not be proven then but it made more sense than the Genesis myths. It turns out that 2200 years later Darwin provided the first evidence suggesting evolution. Now we know it is a fact. But it began as a philosophical speculation by Greek geniuses.
Early on, the ancient Greeks considered that life evolved into different forms.
Long ago, ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander (ca. 611-547 BC), proposed that the Earth had gone through many changes in its history. As a consequence, life took on many different forms during each new stage of the Earth’s development. For example, Anaximander believed that fish dominated the early Earth when there was little land. As the continents appeared, some of the fish left the sea and changed to become more suited for a life on dry land. According to Anaximander, humans resided as quiescent parasites inside these land fish much like a modern day astronaut lives inside a space suit. Once the changing world could support them, humans awoke and cast off their fish skin.
Empedocles (ca 492 BC - ca 432 BC) was one of the greatest of the ancient Greek philosophers. More than 2200 years ago, he discovered the fundamental ideas of life that now support the modern theory of evolution — 1) variety amongst individuals; 2) competition; and 3) reproduction and inheritance. Empedocles saw the diversity in modern animals as a consequence of differentially endowed individuals competing with one another, and passing their attributes to their offspring.
Altruism benefits all of us. God's have a bad record.
Kasavubu
With all respect Professor, are you talking about "deviation" or a "brand new species"? If the latter, I am very curious, sir...
v/r
Q
Please answer the question.
How does a particle that is non-magnetic remain suspended in a magnetic "bottle" despite "gravity? Yet, gravity being constant, any energy defying it, loses? And more specifically, at some point, gravity is the were for all, and no energy can beat it (e.g. a black hole)??? No???
That was my point...not making fun of you or your knowledge.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I think one of the issues involves the word "non-magnetic". You wouldn't normally think about a mouse or frog being magnetic, yet scientists have levitated both using magnetic fields...
Scientists have now levitated mice using magnetic fields.
Other researchers have made live frogs and grasshoppers float in mid-air before, but such research with mice, being closer biologically to humans, could help in studies to counteract bone loss due to reduced gravity over long spans of time, as might be expected in deep space missions or on the surfaces of other planets.
Scientists working on behalf of NASA built a device to simulate variable levels of gravity. It consists of a superconducting magnet that generates a field powerful enough to levitate the water inside living animals, with a space inside warm enough at room temperature and large enough at 2.6 inches wide (6.6 cm) for tiny creatures to float comfortably in during experiments.
Results
Repeated levitation tests showed the mice, even when not sedated, could quickly acclimate to levitation inside the cage. After three or four hours, the mice acted normally, including eating and drinking. The strong magnetic fields did not seem to have any negative impacts on the mice in the short term, and past studies have shown that rats did not suffer from adverse effects after 10 weeks of strong, non-levitating magnetic fields.
"We're trying to see what kind of physiological impact is due to prolonged microgravity, and also what kind of countermeasures might work against it for astronauts," Liu said. "If we can contribute to the future human exploration of space, that would be very exciting." They are now applying for funding for such research with their levitator.
The researchers also levitated water drops up to 2 inches wide (5 cm). This suggests the variable gravity simulator could be used to study how liquids behave under reduced gravity, such as how heat is transferred or how bubbles behave.
Other researchers have made live frogs and grasshoppers float in mid-air before, but such research with mice, being closer biologically to humans, could help in studies to counteract bone loss due to reduced gravity over long spans of time, as might be expected in deep space missions or on the surfaces of other planets.
Scientists working on behalf of NASA built a device to simulate variable levels of gravity. It consists of a superconducting magnet that generates a field powerful enough to levitate the water inside living animals, with a space inside warm enough at room temperature and large enough at 2.6 inches wide (6.6 cm) for tiny creatures to float comfortably in during experiments.
Results
Repeated levitation tests showed the mice, even when not sedated, could quickly acclimate to levitation inside the cage. After three or four hours, the mice acted normally, including eating and drinking. The strong magnetic fields did not seem to have any negative impacts on the mice in the short term, and past studies have shown that rats did not suffer from adverse effects after 10 weeks of strong, non-levitating magnetic fields.
"We're trying to see what kind of physiological impact is due to prolonged microgravity, and also what kind of countermeasures might work against it for astronauts," Liu said. "If we can contribute to the future human exploration of space, that would be very exciting." They are now applying for funding for such research with their levitator.
The researchers also levitated water drops up to 2 inches wide (5 cm). This suggests the variable gravity simulator could be used to study how liquids behave under reduced gravity, such as how heat is transferred or how bubbles behave.
Here is a video where another "non-magnetic" object, a frog is levitated in a similar way...
[youtube]A1vyB-O5i6E[/youtube]
An explanation for this can be found at physics.org...
Some things like iron nails are known for their magnetic properties, but why should frogs levitate in a magnetic field? The trick is to get the magnetic field right – you can’t just use any old bar magnet to make a frog levitate.
Frogs, like everything around and inside us, are made up of millions and billions of atoms. Each of these atoms contains electrons that whizz around a central nucleus, but when atoms are in a magnetic field, the electrons shift their orbits slightly. These shifts give the atoms their own magnetic field so when a frog is put in a very strong magnetic field, it is essentially made up of lots of tiny magnets. And there’s nothing special about frogs. All materials – including strawberries, water and gold – are ‘diamagnetic’ to some extent, but some are more convenient to levitate than others.
Frogs are convenient not only because they have a high water content, which is a good diamagnetic material, but also because they fit easily inside a tube shaped Bitter electromagnet. Bitter electromagnets use an electric current to create an extremely strong magnetic field and this field induces an opposite magnetic field in the frog. The opposing fields repel each other, pushing the frog up to an area of lower magnetism and levitating it.
Frogs, like everything around and inside us, are made up of millions and billions of atoms. Each of these atoms contains electrons that whizz around a central nucleus, but when atoms are in a magnetic field, the electrons shift their orbits slightly. These shifts give the atoms their own magnetic field so when a frog is put in a very strong magnetic field, it is essentially made up of lots of tiny magnets. And there’s nothing special about frogs. All materials – including strawberries, water and gold – are ‘diamagnetic’ to some extent, but some are more convenient to levitate than others.
Frogs are convenient not only because they have a high water content, which is a good diamagnetic material, but also because they fit easily inside a tube shaped Bitter electromagnet. Bitter electromagnets use an electric current to create an extremely strong magnetic field and this field induces an opposite magnetic field in the frog. The opposing fields repel each other, pushing the frog up to an area of lower magnetism and levitating it.
As I had posted previously, electromagnetic forces are 10-to-the-36 more powerful than the force of gravity. That's why a dime-store magnet can attract a pin more powerfully than all the gravitational mass of the Earth.
When you look at the earth, its electrical charges adds up to about zero (with all the positive and negative charges canceling each other out), while the mass adds up to a huge amount. So gravity "appears" to be stronger. But if you look at the capacity of an individual particle to produce a force, electromagnetic forces have a far greater influence than gravity.
Hi Citizen —
I've been banging on about "The Master and his Emissary" Iain McGilchrist over a few posts now.
Check out the comments on Amazon, or his own website.
The schizophrenia of post-modern western culture is not his own theory, I've heard it for a number of years ... and the more I dig around on the internet, the more the evidence is mounting.
God bless,
Thomas
I've been banging on about "The Master and his Emissary" Iain McGilchrist over a few posts now.
Check out the comments on Amazon, or his own website.
The schizophrenia of post-modern western culture is not his own theory, I've heard it for a number of years ... and the more I dig around on the internet, the more the evidence is mounting.
God bless,
Thomas
cb45
Member
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
In general it is indeed possible as God certainly isn't limited, only
"man" is. but HIS unlimited power cuts both ways.
not all things "evolve" as science has shown/proven. so i dont subscribe to evolution as "the be -all" answer to all life, or an explanation for mankinds development at the least.
if you wish to believe your "higher intelligence" is evolved from
monkeys/apes, then thats yer prerogative. based on some of
the "arrogance" seen here at IFO, maybe theres some credence
to that/yer belief.
its ironic but, whether its here or out in academia-land, we think we know something or have debunked something, based on the latest "finding" by some "Joe-blow" or some Nobel Noel in some TV spot or Scientific Journal telling us they found/reaffirmed some fact/discovery; only to find out later (5-50-500 yrs) that what they thought they knew wasn't even close, was contrary to what they proposed as truth, or was only an initial stage in the overall realm of "understanding."
That is to say, "understanding" and/or "discovery" is THE
epitome of an evolutionary process itself! So there are NO
definite answers, per individual, as you can decide for
yourself, whether it is simpler to believe the latest
guru, fad, or report or more complex. Is it simpler to believe
say, the bible, or harder/more complex? Which is the greater
faith? selah.
i prefer to have a simple faith in most things, especially where
"foundations" are concerned. Jesus is the Rock! selah.
after this all other things can be deemed cloudy, uncertain, trivial, pridefull, in-flux, possible, complex, deceitful, ignorant, humble, etc.
I don't believe mankind evolved from apes, based on Noahs
Ark history of the flood, recorded in over 200+ cultures.
you can agree or attack my view. doesnt matter. unless
God tells me otherwise, i choose to believe in the spirit realm
of things TRUMPING over the physical realm when it comes to
truth, or the ultimate truth (more accurately put).
go collect all the scientific data u want. people are getting MIRACULOUSLY healed everyday without scientific explanations all over the world and many of your medical & scientific doctors with their doctrates as well as quantum physics backgrounds education(s) (amongst others) are getting converted to Jesus'
LOVE & wisdom as they see for themselves the limitations of the "foolish wisdom of man." selah!
B'Shalom...........is available...........to all.........who have faith!
"man" is. but HIS unlimited power cuts both ways.
not all things "evolve" as science has shown/proven. so i dont subscribe to evolution as "the be -all" answer to all life, or an explanation for mankinds development at the least.
if you wish to believe your "higher intelligence" is evolved from
monkeys/apes, then thats yer prerogative. based on some of
the "arrogance" seen here at IFO, maybe theres some credence
to that/yer belief.
its ironic but, whether its here or out in academia-land, we think we know something or have debunked something, based on the latest "finding" by some "Joe-blow" or some Nobel Noel in some TV spot or Scientific Journal telling us they found/reaffirmed some fact/discovery; only to find out later (5-50-500 yrs) that what they thought they knew wasn't even close, was contrary to what they proposed as truth, or was only an initial stage in the overall realm of "understanding."
That is to say, "understanding" and/or "discovery" is THE
epitome of an evolutionary process itself! So there are NO
definite answers, per individual, as you can decide for
yourself, whether it is simpler to believe the latest
guru, fad, or report or more complex. Is it simpler to believe
say, the bible, or harder/more complex? Which is the greater
faith? selah.
i prefer to have a simple faith in most things, especially where
"foundations" are concerned. Jesus is the Rock! selah.
after this all other things can be deemed cloudy, uncertain, trivial, pridefull, in-flux, possible, complex, deceitful, ignorant, humble, etc.
I don't believe mankind evolved from apes, based on Noahs
Ark history of the flood, recorded in over 200+ cultures.
you can agree or attack my view. doesnt matter. unless
God tells me otherwise, i choose to believe in the spirit realm
of things TRUMPING over the physical realm when it comes to
truth, or the ultimate truth (more accurately put).
go collect all the scientific data u want. people are getting MIRACULOUSLY healed everyday without scientific explanations all over the world and many of your medical & scientific doctors with their doctrates as well as quantum physics backgrounds education(s) (amongst others) are getting converted to Jesus'
LOVE & wisdom as they see for themselves the limitations of the "foolish wisdom of man." selah!
B'Shalom...........is available...........to all.........who have faith!
Hi Kasavubu —
1: what is 'real'? We accept that the observer cannot be abstracted from the observation, so what is observed is conditioned in some way by the observer.
2: Which 'scientific method' are we talking about? There is not one, over-arching method ... the methodology of the different sciences vary, according to their axioms.
3: What if there is more to life than observable phenomena — if you rule that out on the a priori assumption that 'I can't see anything, therefore there's nothing there', you'll never know?
4: What about the allowance that not everything is going to reveal itself to man, no matter how sophisticated his technologies.
All I'm asking is science keeps an open mind like religion does.
I would say empirical scientific method is the best 'bottom-up' approach. For a top-down approach, other methods are called for. As it is axiomatic that the sum is greater than the whole of its parts, the bottom-up approach is never going to reveal all that can be known about a thing, be it an atom, or a universe. My experience of life demonstrates to me that such an approach is always limited in its result. there are more successful methods.
Facts, after all, are human constructs built on observed phenomena. Facts are as fallible as any other order of knowledge. Facts are dubious.
Many, including scientists, see reasonable, rational and logical arguments for the existence of God that doesn't involve the irrational or the illogical.
But really? I think a lot of science rests on mental concepts that explain the world. The concepts work, but they're still concepts. Without the concept, science is void. Science exists within a concept, it doesn't create them.
I would further say science believes on faith as much as any religion. There is no reason why the world need be explainable, intelligible ... whatever.
See what I mean about 'open mind'?
I was always told in space you are weightless, that's a fact. Now I'm told gravity on the Mir Space Station is 85% that of earth, that's a fact. This latter fact seems to contradict the first fact. They don't ... weightlessness is relative ... it's just that everything is falling at the same rate ... but it does show how much blind faith operates in day to day reliance on science as the only possible truth concerning the human condition.
In effect what you're saying is 'empirical science is limited, but anything outside of it is probably madness'. (That's not a very scientific way to proceed, it's steeped in what I would call superstition.)
(And in fact it's quite easy to distinguish between an authentic prophet and a schizophrenic, the two see the world utterly differently.)
If you had an illness would you seek out an astronomer? If you had a mathematical problem, would you seek the answer from a botanist?
And reason and logic say that God is not beyond human perception, as God can by hypothesised. In fact, it's the same reason and logic that gave birth to science in the first place.
So it argues from ignorance ... that's just fundamentalism.
I also note science very clever avoids asking the questions it knows it cannot answer: Why is there anything at all?
God bless,
Thomas
That sits on a number of assumptions:
1: what is 'real'? We accept that the observer cannot be abstracted from the observation, so what is observed is conditioned in some way by the observer.
2: Which 'scientific method' are we talking about? There is not one, over-arching method ... the methodology of the different sciences vary, according to their axioms.
3: What if there is more to life than observable phenomena — if you rule that out on the a priori assumption that 'I can't see anything, therefore there's nothing there', you'll never know?
4: What about the allowance that not everything is going to reveal itself to man, no matter how sophisticated his technologies.
All I'm asking is science keeps an open mind like religion does.
I would say empirical scientific method is the best 'bottom-up' approach. For a top-down approach, other methods are called for. As it is axiomatic that the sum is greater than the whole of its parts, the bottom-up approach is never going to reveal all that can be known about a thing, be it an atom, or a universe. My experience of life demonstrates to me that such an approach is always limited in its result. there are more successful methods.
I know. There's more to life than facts.
Facts, after all, are human constructs built on observed phenomena. Facts are as fallible as any other order of knowledge. Facts are dubious.
Well maybe you can't see God, but that's not proof of anything. You can't speak for everyone, as the non-existence of God is not a 'fact'.
Many, including scientists, see reasonable, rational and logical arguments for the existence of God that doesn't involve the irrational or the illogical.
Then I wish science would keep an open mind on the topic.
But really? I think a lot of science rests on mental concepts that explain the world. The concepts work, but they're still concepts. Without the concept, science is void. Science exists within a concept, it doesn't create them.
I would further say science believes on faith as much as any religion. There is no reason why the world need be explainable, intelligible ... whatever.
OK. But they're mental concepts that have a huge amount of supporting data, like evolution. I mean, no-one is saying QM is all delusion, are they?
Ah, so if you're a scientist and theorise something based on experience and observation (same thing, really), that's science; if you're not a scientist and theorise something on the same axiomatic lines, you're deluded?
See what I mean about 'open mind'?
And what of metaphysical hypotheses? What of theological hypotheses? And what of string theory, or time, or gravity ...
I was always told in space you are weightless, that's a fact. Now I'm told gravity on the Mir Space Station is 85% that of earth, that's a fact. This latter fact seems to contradict the first fact. They don't ... weightlessness is relative ... it's just that everything is falling at the same rate ... but it does show how much blind faith operates in day to day reliance on science as the only possible truth concerning the human condition.
You were doing quite well until you tried to ride an opinion in on the tail of the 'facts'. In my theology essays, I got clobbered for that quite heavily.
In effect what you're saying is 'empirical science is limited, but anything outside of it is probably madness'. (That's not a very scientific way to proceed, it's steeped in what I would call superstition.)
(And in fact it's quite easy to distinguish between an authentic prophet and a schizophrenic, the two see the world utterly differently.)
I find it irrational to insist that 'because I can't measure it, it can't exist'. Why not? Who said your systems of measurement are the absolute as far as the cosmos is concerned? Where lies the rationality in accepting a system that cannot explain that which by definition cannot be systematised by its methodology?
If you had an illness would you seek out an astronomer? If you had a mathematical problem, would you seek the answer from a botanist?
I would say it's sensible to apply reason and logical before jumping to a methodology, to determine whether the methodology is viable. Both reason and logic, would suggest the methodology of empirical measurement as unsuitable.
And reason and logic say that God is not beyond human perception, as God can by hypothesised. In fact, it's the same reason and logic that gave birth to science in the first place.
Now you're working to an erroneous definition of God. You're demonstrating what I said, science is usually way out of date when it tries to argue the logic of theology. Really, when science starts imaging what God is, it's utter nonsense.
So it argues from ignorance ... that's just fundamentalism.
As I understand it, evolution is a theory with so much supporting evidence that, as a theory 'you can take it to the bank'. I don't think you can direct me to where I can observe one species in the act of evolving into another species, so I can observe before and after in one test subject? I do accept that the evidence that species evolve is inarguable.
Really? Are you sure? So every observer, and every observer's observation, is infallible? I don't think so.
So theories and facts are not fixed, they just happen to be the best we have to hand at any moment in time. Nor are they even certain. That's all I'm arguing. On that basis, one cannot logically, rationally, reasonably exclude the idea of God.
I also note science very clever avoids asking the questions it knows it cannot answer: Why is there anything at all?
I think you'll find that, logically, it's man who's record leaves something to be desired.
God bless,
Thomas
So exactly how long did it take some theists to believe that evolution and religion could easily coincide? How about immediately?
Following Socrates’ Advice for Bridging the Institutions of Science and Religion Author: Wm. Earle Klay, Ph.D.
Science does not exist, waiting to be discovered, science is the product of human activity.
That science is the product of man, does not thereby assert that man is the product of science.
God bless,
Thomas
That science is the product of man, does not thereby assert that man is the product of science.
God bless,
Thomas