quote: Can you show, scientifically, that that which is not observable is of no consequence? What is 'consequence', anyway?
I do not need to show that. In your very description you preclude any value of such a thing by declaring it un-observable. If I claim that there are tiny actors in my TV that make the nice shows for me, but am not willing to open the TV and see if there are any actors in there, my theory will remain useless.
quote:The Big Bang Theory, for example. It fits the facts and it's useful to know about it, but in the end it is not provable. This would be an example of something with value that cannot be observed.
What facts does the Big Bang Theory fit? Are these facts observable? (I know that there are facts, and that it IS observable, I am just asking if you know this) There are in existence some theories which do not offer ways to determine their truth. Such theories are useless until someone can determine a way to test them.
quote: but I think you're a bit too comfortable claiming that all of these people are simply mistaken
500 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Would you say the Comubus was arrogant or "too comfortable"?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what exactly are we supposed to be talking about here?
When I stepped in, people seemed to be discussing holy texts and which ones were more or less "true." I began by asking why those who believe, accept these texts as absolute truth. It evolved from there. If this is all too far off topic, I have no problem creating a science VS religion thread. What do you think?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no, 500 years ago many uneducated thought the earth was flat. Educated people had known the earth was flat for about 2000 years or so.
The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years. Educated and uneducated alike thought the earth was flat until the 1500's.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I have a co-worker who tells me that the earth is no more than 6000 years old. He asserts that the bible is a complete and accurate document, which is unflawwed. This is what I mean by absolute truth. I am not sure how others here view the bible, but this belief seems to be wide spread.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, I have a co-worker who tells me that the earth is no more than 6000 years old.
See, now I would not agree with that. It has been less than 6000 years since Creation, but I don't believe that the "six days" of Creation were necessarily literal.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I see. I doubt that you'll find anyone at Hatrack that believes that -- and that's a pretty boring debate anyway.
How about something more interesting vis a vis science and religion:
Can science learn anything valuable from scriptural texts (Christian or otherwise)? And can that value be more than just personal (i.e. a scientist finds comfort or whatever in faith) but come in the form of opening new scientific frontiers or suggesting ways of going about 'doing' science that aren't currently employed?
EDIT: I should add that this question is not a set up. I know that there are religionists who would answer yes to that question, but I'm not convinced either way. I ask the question as one who is intersted in how discourse (especially written texts) influence how humanity experiences and shapes this world.
quote:originally posted by Robespierre You die, thats what happens. Nothing. Proven time and time again. Now of course, we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
Why must we discount it as fantasy if we can’t prove it? Do you believe that everything that happens in the universe is provable? If so, what is the [provable] basis for this view?
You may want to take a look at Gödel sometime to see a mathematical proof that not everything that is mathematically true can be mathematically proven.
quote:originally posted by Robespierre The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years. Educated and uneducated alike thought the earth was flat until the 1500's.
Well, no, actually. The Copernicus/Galileo disputes w/ the Church were about whether the sun rotated around the earth or the earth rotated around the sun, not about whether the earth was flat. See this link for a brief overview:
quote: From the foregoing, it’s not surprising that flat-earthism has been associated with Christianity since the beginning. Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography. But Cosmas was fighting a losing battle, and the Ptolemaic system, based on a spherical earth, rapidly took over. By the 12th century (despite Edward Blick’s implication to the contrary), the flat-earth concept was essentially a dead letter in the West.Emphasis added.
Columbus was not trying to convince people the world was round when he argued for his voyage, he was trying to convince them that the world was small enough to safely make the trip (not knowing about the Americas at the time). No one argued against the voyage because they thought the boat would sail off the edge of the earth. Remember, the art of navigation widely in use at the time absolutely required acknowledging the earth is a sphere.
If you really want to have a faith/science discussion, you need to get your facts straight.
quote: Can science learn anything valuable from scriptural texts (Christian or otherwise)?
Archeology can be aided by ancient texts. All of the western world was familiar with the city of Troy before it was even discovered to be an acutal city. My problem comes when biblical archeologists claim that becuase they confirm some cities in the bible actually existed, that it confirms the truth of the bible as a holy text. This merely confirms that the names of real places were used when writting it. If this logic were sound, we would be forced to believe that Odyssius actually did stab a cyclops named Polyphemus in the eye because the city of Troy has been discovered.
quote: but come in the form of opening new scientific frontiers or suggesting ways of going about 'doing' science that aren't currently employed?
This is certainly possible. Science did evolve from religion. Astronomy is the direct decendant of astrology. Chemistry is the child of alchemy. The point to made here though, is that these fields were based on observations of the real world. Most of what religions write about in the real world has been explained by science, or is never going to be explained, because it is un-observable.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many of the Fathers of the Church were flat-earthers, and they developed a system with which to oppose the Greek astronomy then becoming popular. As late as 548 A.D., the Egyptian monk Cosmas Indicopleustes was vigorously defending the flat earth in his book Christian Topography.
I said
quote: The greeks and egyptians figured it out. However, when the dark ages rolled around, this knowledge was lost to superstition and religion for 1000 years.
I will admitt that your source says I am wrong about the 1000 years. However, I was correct in saying that the greeks and egyptians figured it out.
quote: The Copernicus/Galileo disputes w/ the Church were about whether the sun rotated around the earth or the earth rotated around the sun, not about whether the earth was flat.
No one here brought up Copernicus/Galileo until you. Why do you mention this well known fact?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say that there is not a God, and that he does not help me in any way, as he does not exist.
Yeah, I get it, its the title of the thread. I thought we were cool about were the discussion was going though.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The flat/round thing began when I said this:
quote: 500 years ago most people thought the earth was flat. Would you say the Comubus was arrogant or "too comfortable"?
I made a mistake. I should have used an example I knew more about.
However, this whole thing makes my point. There are MANY MANY people who think as I did, that people were not aware of the spherical earth during the dark ages. Just because many people think that, does not make it true. However, I have responded to observable data, and changed my view on the subject.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why is observable data the only proper grounding for truth?
How else can something be verified as true?
It seems that to ask the question, is to state the answer.
To be sure, it is possible to simply accept something as true, without observing it at all. However, there would be no way of knowing if you were correct or not. You may think your idea is true, but have no way of knowing if it is or not.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, Rob, is that you're using Science--or the existence of science, really--to come to a conclusion about the non-existence of God. Now, I'm totally open to the possibility that there may not be a God, but as you yourself have argued, science cannot be used to interpret something for which we have no scientific data. Ergo, to come to a SCIENTIFIC conlusion about the non-existence of God is rather silly.
To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get. You'd have to start from the assumption that modern science can see EVERYTHING, and then you'd have to PROVE that it can already see everything, and then you'd have to provide evidence showing that God does not exist. None of these can be done, which is why your blanket statements asserting that Science proves God does not exist are faulty. What you CAN say is that "I don't believe science has ever encountered any data that would support the existence of God".
I was just joking about the help thing, sort of. You should recognize that this discussion, by virtue of its subject matter, involves primarily those individuals who DO believe in a God, and you should flavor your posts respectfully keeping that in mind.
Respectfully would not include suggesting that all who believe in God are illogical OR unscientific. Naturally every individual sees their own beliefs as logical, or they would not believe them. If it is your intent to convince them that their beliefs are illogical, you'll need to prove to them with evidence that their beliefs are unfounded, rather than claiming that science-in-general proves them wrong. Especially because science-in-general really has nothing to say about the existence of God other than the fact that it "can't prove anything one way or the other".
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is not to say that Science couldn't EVENTUALLY prove or disprove the existence of God, I should add. Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get.
I totally agree with you, but who said that?
quote: Now, I'm totally open to the possibility that there may not be a God, but as you yourself have argued, science cannot be used to interpret something for which we have no scientific data. Ergo, to come to a SCIENTIFIC conlusion about the non-existence of God is rather silly.
Who caim to a "scientific" conclusion about the non-existence of God? I could be wrong, but I don't ever recall stating that science says there is no God. I DO remember questioning people who claim that there IS a God, and asking for evidence.
You are misplacing the burden of proof. The burden lies on the shoulders of believers. Science does not need to prove that something doesn't exist. Those who say this thing does exist, need to provide positive evidence that it does.
You said:
quote: Especially because science-in-general really has nothing to say about the existence of God other than the fact that it "can't prove anything one way or the other".
Which sounds like something I said:
quote: Logic, however, does NOT make predictions about what you believe.
and
quote: But you can NEVER prove that lying is a sin. Or that Jesus was the son of God. These sort of things are outside the world of logic
quote:originally posted by Robespierre How else can something be verified as true?
It seems that to ask the question, is to state the answer.
But why do all truths need to be verifiable? You take some things on faith (definition 1, not 2). For example, you believe that in 1919 Eddington actually carried out an experiment that verified the curvature of light caused by the sun’s gravity. I’m assuming you weren’t there; obviously you trusted someone’s account of the event.
quote:To be sure, it is possible to simply accept something as true, without observing it at all. However, there would be no way of knowing if you were correct or not. You may think your idea is true, but have no way of knowing if it is or not.
Most people have no way of directly verifying most of the things they believe. For example, Eddington did not prove that light was deflected – he measured the position of a star. In effect, all he “proved” was that a the point in time of the eclipse, a star X was in position Y.
It was only by comparing that position to someone else’s measurement of the star when it was not behind the sun and by applying mathematical formulas that someone else developed that allowed him to say that the light from the star was being bent by the sun.
Let me be clear, I think this is an entirely valid way to discover truths about the physical universe (despite the fact that Eddington actually made a mistake in his measurements and had to be proven right later).
But to say that this method relies only on observable data is not true – it relies on other persons’ accounts of observed data. These accounts are not “verifiable” without doing their experiments over again – and even then it only verifies the phenomenon to the people who witness the re-verification. Without some willingness to believe in something unprovable, science could not advance.
At this point you’d be hard-pressed to prove that someone name Albert Einstein existed and came up with the two theories of relativity. But I believe he existed and, to the extent I am able to comprehend his theories, I believe his theories exposed some heretofore unknown truths about the physical universe.
posted
You are blurring the line between Faith #1 and Faith #2. Belief in God, as agreed earlier, is something that requires Faith #2.
quote: At this point you’d be hard-pressed to prove that someone name Albert Einstein existed and came up with the two theories of relativity.
I could show you the original copies of the papers written by him, corrolate those with examples of his handwritting, show you motion pictures of him, have you interview those who worked with him, etc.
quote: But to say that this method relies only on observable data is not true – it relies on other persons’ accounts of observed data.
But in the end, it all comes down to observable data. Of which the bible has none. The original point here was me questioning the holy texts and asking for evidence of their truths.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist" is as unscientific as you can get.
quote:I totally agree with you, but who said that?
You did, actually:
quote:we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
quote:You are misplacing the burden of proof. The burden lies on the shoulders of believers. Science does not need to prove that something doesn't exist. Those who say this thing does exist, need to provide positive evidence that it does.
The burden lies with those who wish to change the minds of others, my friend. The Christians here haven't asked you--yet--to believe in their God. After going back through your posts it seems that you are not specifically asking them to give up their faith, either, but it is you who have suggested that knowledge apart from science is irrelevant.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: "science can't see it, therefore it does not exist"
and
quote: we cannot prove that your "soul" doesn't go somewhere and have a party with other souls, but without any evidence for this, we must discount it as fantasy.
are saying two totally unrelated things. When you use such a general phrase as "science can't see it" you invite ambiguity. It would seem the the goal of those of you disagreeing with me has been to attack me on a semantic level, without addressing the substance of what I am saying.
What I said about the Soul is true, and it relates very well witht he burden of proof argument.
quote: but it is you who have suggested that knowledge apart from science is irrelevant.
That is correct. I would ask for someone to provide one example of this knowledge which is apart from science. This is what I have been asking all along, talk to me about why you believe what you do. What is there that you think exists outside of science, that can be "true"?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Belief in God, as agreed earlier, is something that requires Faith #2.
Who exactly agreed to this? You stated it as if it were fact, two people posted who disagreed, no one posted that they agreed.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but Caleb was not talking about the definition of the word "faith."
I'd appreciate it if you'd take some care not to use the words "faith" and "belief" as if they were interchangable. They're not.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is "we can't prove it so we must call it fantasy" any different from "science can't see it therefore it doesn't exist"?
Science can't see = we can't prove it's fantasy = doesn't exist
Or did you NOT mean that any idea not founded in science should be done away with? It seems like that's what you said. I usually use the word fantasy to describe either a state of imagination or deception. How did you mean it when you said it?
quote:It would seem the the goal of those of you disagreeing with me has been to attack me on a semantic level, without addressing the substance of what I am saying.
Actually I do not believe in the Gods that you have been questioning, and am not really even arguing "against you" per se.
And I'm not "attacking" you on a semantic level and ignoring your substance so much as saying your "arguments" don't HAVE substance to begin with. Admittedly this is because you're not really trying to prove that God doesn't exist as much as you're demanding that others prove that he DOES, while pointing out over and over again that they don't have proof. What's the substance in that?
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is correct. I would ask for someone to provide one example of this knowledge which is apart from science. This is what I have been asking all along, talk to me about why you believe what you do. What is there that you think exists outside of science, that can be "true"?
Your first stament is kind of confusing me, are you asking for something that people believe that is "outside of science" or something that matters that exists "outside of science"? Sorry.
As for faith in God, it does exist copmletely independ from science, or at least mine doesn't. I can sympathize with you here because I do know people who believe because they were told to, or other rather silly reasons and it's always difficult to deal with. Most people here do not belief because someone told them to though, most people here have very good reasons for belief (some of which I'm sure they aren't comfortable sharing). The way I came to belief was through scientific method. Starting with a hypothesis and then testing it. Repeatability was also key, as well as outside influences. I can tell you right now, I acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong, but I feel comfortable enough in the truth of my opinion to act on what it as if it were fact. Because really (as has been pointed out) there is no fact, or at least no facts can be proved completely without some starting assumptions (like what we witness is true).
posted
Robespierre, what you probably aren’t recognizing, (because you’re fairly new here, but we won’t hold that against you ) is that most of the folks on this forum aren’t interested in debating whether or not science can prove or disprove the existence of God. That’s a tedious discussion, and we’ve all had it before.
There’s also more than one of us who get irritated by people who think that anyone who practices a religion must not be familiar with the scientific method or must automatically be hostile toward science. That might not be what you believe, but it is definitely the image you’re projecting.
There isn’t anyone on Hatrack, as far as I know, who takes the six-day creation account in Genesis literally. We have dozens of different ways of looking at scripture represented, and if you’d like to start a thread about that I’m sure it would get a lot of action.
You see, we have many different flavors of religious belief represented here, and sometimes we like to discuss and compare the details. That’s part of what this thread was about. And we can’t discuss the details of our respective faiths if people keep barging in and demanding we prove we’re not loony for having faith in the first place.
I hope you’ll hang around and participate in the discussion. But watch for the subtleties, okay?
I could show you the original copies of the papers written by him,
How can you prove he wrote them?
corrolate those with examples of his handwritting,
How do we know that’s his handwriting?
show you motion pictures of him,
Again, how do we know those movies are of him?
have you interview those who worked with him, etc.
Ahh, so eyewitness account is an acceptable form of proof? Excellent.
But in the end, it all comes down to observable data. Of which the bible has none. The original point here was me questioning the holy texts and asking for evidence of their truths.
Well, the Catholic church at least has a continuum of leaders (the popes) that go all the way back to the time of Christ, one after the other with no breaks or gaps in the historical record. St. Peter, the first pope, was a witness to Christ’s miracles and to the events of the gospels and Acts. There are non-biblical accounts of some of the events in the New Testament dating back to the time of Christ.
Each pope in turn has upheld the legitimacy of the scriptures. OK, it goes back 2000 years, so the provenance is not as easily established as a movie of Albert Einstein. But there are eyewitness accounts believed by more people throughout history than have ever heard of Albert Einstein.
quote: It would seem the the goal of those of you disagreeing with me has been to attack me on a semantic level, without addressing the substance of what I am saying.
HA haha ha haa haaaaah....
hahahahaha . . . . ha ha . . haaaaa.... . . . . . Welcome to Hatrack.
Anyway Rob, saying that you have physical proof that Einstein existed is fine, but how do you know that you're not a vegetable, and everything in your mind is just something you thought up while lying in the bed? It's a far cry, but the point is that belief in the exactness of science requires quite a bit of "faith" as well. I think that's the point Dag is trying to make.
posted
Mmkay. I've followed this thread but barely.
On my college's forum, someone got started talking about prayer as well. And someone posted this article by Marion Zimmer Bradley (author, now deceased). Briefly, it discusses why some prayers might not be answered, and what answers to prayers might not be utilized.
quote: most of the folks on this forum aren’t interested in debating whether or not science can prove or disprove the existence of God.
This is an easy way for me to step out of this conversation. Not because I don't want to answer each and every post which challenges me, but because I have not the time to keep up with you guys. Take this as a white flag, or whatever you like. I don't want to argue with you if I am being a troll.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Robespierre, I didn’t call you a troll, and I certainly didn’t mean to chase you off. I hope you’ll reconsider.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"This is kind of funny. Everyone around me knows what a pessimist I am. I don't think I'm EVER optimistic about anything EXCEPT God."
Perhaps it is because you are naturally a pessimist that you're unable to be optimistic about anything but an idealized higher power?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I realize this. I just didn't want to be that guy who couldn't let the issue drop. I understand that the god Vs science thing must have been discussed like umpteen million times by now on this forum. I still want to discuss it of course. Plus, on the weekends I don't have much time to keep up with everything.
Another thought on this subject. I would assume that not everyone on this board believes in God. That would be highly unusual for the inter-web. I was wondering at first, "where is the backup?" I had two thoughts on why there were no other 'rackers posting on my side of the issue. One: They stopped reading this thread after page one, as they didn't want to discuss the ins and outs of canon law. Two: They have already been through these discussions and were sick of them.
So anyways, if anyone wants to keep going on this topic, I have no problem with it, but it will have to wait 'till tomorrow.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Three: There have been at least 5 atheists/agnostics/other non-religious folk participating in this thread in the last 3 days but they a) don’t think this is a simple two sided theist vs. atheist debate and thus don’t feel the need to join your “team,” b) don’t agree with your specific points, and/or c) know that the arguments you’re using don’t apply to most of the theists on this board.
or
Four: They were posting, and you mistook them for creationists. (Hi Caleb )
But I should know better than to speculate on other people’s motives for posting/not posting. I’m glad you decided to continue. Might you be interested in a somewhat more nuanced discussion of the relationship between religion and science? There are a lot of people who don’t consider it a simple “vs.” issue.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I didn't post for ALL of the above reasons. I figured that if Robespierre wanted to poke people with sticks, he could do it on his own. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
