Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
Jack
I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
by our society. Evolution is taken to be against the creation story
for Christians. This however makes no sense to me. How can a natural
events and supernatural events be debated? Well i would argue that in
the case of the creation story it is impossible. As a scientist the
evidence supports a universe which is around 14 billion years old
which was created at time t = 0 (in our universe). But this of course
is a natural description of our universe. The creation story is the
product of a miraculous event where god created the universe too its
present time in 6 days. So how to proceed with two seemingly
contradictory statements? First I will define what a miracle is.
Miracle - the defying of absolute natural laws. This definition first
provides that there must be a set of natural laws that governs the
natural universe that completely govern the entirety of the universe.
So let me state it more plainly: There are natural processes which
govern the universe. This is of course why the creation was a miracle
because if it happened that way( 6 days) it would be a miraculous
event since it would seem to squeeze 14 billion years in 6 days.
This however is not a problem for a religious person since they can
simply say that a miracle caused it.
So to finish these comments before I ramble too much. You choose to
believe one or the other happened but no one can be tell you that
either is a fact since each as defined above cannot disprove the
other. As for evolution it is just another natural process that could
have been replaced by a miracle (it is only belief which separates
science from religion natural/supernatural).
Perplexed in Peoria
"Jack" <Daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1176693536.1...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
That is well and good. But just about every religious person has a big
problem with what you just said. Because you are saying that God created
a universe in which all the physical evidence indicates that it took
14 billion years for man to arise. But you are also saying that He really
did it in just 6 days. This suggests that God played a cosmic practical
joke on us. It kinda makes you wonder whether you can trust anything else
He says or does.
There are (at least) two ways out.
- Either it really did take 14 billion years or so, and that six-day thing
is just some misguided people taking Scripture too literally.
- Or, it really did take 6 days, and the scientists who read the physical
evidence to suggest 14 billion years are not very good scientists.
There are both scientists and religious people who take the first way out.
They mostly don't fight with each other.
But the people who take the second way out pretty much have to fight with
everybody else.
Steven J.
> Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
>
> I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
> by our society. Evolution is taken to be against the creation story
> for Christians. This however makes no sense to me. How can a natural
> events and supernatural events be debated? Well i would argue that in
> the case of the creation story it is impossible. As a scientist the
> evidence supports a universe which is around 14 billion years old
> which was created at time t = 0 (in our universe). But this of course
> is a natural description of our universe. The creation story is the
> product of a miraculous event where god created the universe too its
> present time in 6 days. So how to proceed with two seemingly
> contradictory statements? First I will define what a miracle is.
> Miracle - the defying of absolute natural laws. This definition first
> provides that there must be a set of natural laws that governs the
> natural universe that completely govern the entirety of the universe.
> So let me state it more plainly: There are natural processes which
> govern the universe. This is of course why the creation was a miracle
> because if it happened that way( 6 days) it would be a miraculous
> event since it would seem to squeeze 14 billion years in 6 days.
> This however is not a problem for a religious person since they can
> simply say that a miracle caused it.
>
that had been done, we would find the stars (or some of them) created
on Day 1, and the sun and Earth created sometime on Day 4. One can,
of course, say that God miraculously created the sort of universe that
might otherwise have naturally evolved (as, e.g. the wine created at
the miracle at Cana presumably resembled naturally-made wine). But it
seems (as Perplexed in Peoria noted) very strange for God to imply, in
His creation, such a detailed history that was completely false and
completely different from what is, on creationist views, the actual
history.
Vaguely similar ideas have been batted around for the last century and
a half; a book by Phillip Gosse (_Omphalos, or Creation_) gave the
idea a name: "omphalism." But Gosse was arguing that a universe and
Earth that appeared (as far as anyone could tell) infinitely old, with
an endlessly recurring cyclical history, in fact had a specific
beginning. If one creates something that runs in endless cycles, one
has, I suppose, to create it at some specific point in that cycle, so
Gosse's view, while bothersome in the sense that it implied that God
had wrought falsehoods over the entire fabric of the heavens and the
Earth, made some small amount of sense. It is a rather different
matter to suppose that the universe was created, not with the
appearance of an endless cyclical existence, but with the appearance
of an actual history with a beginning, that happened to be completely
incompatible with the actual history of the Earth. That seems neither
necessary nor sensible.
>
> So to finish these comments before I ramble too much. You choose to
> believe one or the other happened but no one can be tell you that
> either is a fact since each as defined above cannot disprove the
> other. As for evolution it is just another natural process that could
> have been replaced by a miracle (it is only belief which separates
> science from religion natural/supernatural).
>
The classic response to that is to point out that we cannot *prove*,
in any absolute sense, that the entire universe (complete with our
memories and souvenirs of earlier events) was not created last
Thursday morning, and that all previous history is just a miraculous
illusion. We can't *prove* that the universe and mankind is not (as
Aristotle held) infinitely ancient, and that all evidence that Earth
history is finite (if vast) are a miraculous illusion recently foisted
on us by Someone who wanted us to think there was a beginning and a
Creator. It is common in this newsgroup to argue that the trouble
with supernatural hypotheses in science is that *any* evidence is
potentially compatible with supernatural causes, but your explanation
makes it especially obvious.
-- Steven J.
richardal...@googlemail.com
The "debate" between "scientific" creationists and science has little
to do with religion. It's about honesty.
Creationist sources are demonstrably and systematically dishonest.
Scientific sources are not.
The claim by "scientific" creationists that their convictions are
supported by science is bad religion just as much as it is bad
science.
RF
wf3h
Jack wrote:
> Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
>
> I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
> by our society. Evolution is taken to be against the creation story
> for Christians. This however makes no sense to me. How can a natural
> events and supernatural events be debated? Well i would argue that in
> the case of the creation story it is impossible. As a scientist the
> evidence supports a universe which is around 14 billion years old
> which was created at time t = 0 (in our universe). But this of course
> is a natural description of our universe. The creation story is the
> product of a miraculous event where god created the universe too its
> present time in 6 days.
problem is, anyone can claim a miracle for any purpose. that's why
creationism is based on random events...anything can happen at any
time.
Dale Kelly
> which was created at time t = 0--
there is no absolute time=0, time is cyclical, we pursue all logical
courses of action, then start all over again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
--
Dale
http://www.vedantasite.org
loua...@yahoo.com
Point of etiquette: Long, rambling rants should be punctuated with
sets of _five_ exclamation points. Sets of three only indicate that
you're putting on a horror convention. Please, it's just as easy to do
these things properly.
Woland
Point 2) They should consist of one paragraph with no capitalization
and little to no punctuation.
Mark Isaak
> Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
> [...]
Science and religion are not fighting. The fight is between science and
creationism. Creationism is a political movement which is about as
anti-religious as you can get.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
>
>I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
>by our society. Evolution is taken to be against the creation story
>for Christians.
It is. Evolution is science, creationism is a fairy story.
> This however makes no sense to me. How can a natural
>events and supernatural events be debated? Well i would argue that in
>the case of the creation story it is impossible. As a scientist the
>evidence supports a universe which is around 14 billion years old
>which was created at time t = 0 (in our universe). But this of course
>is a natural description of our universe. The creation story is the
>product of a miraculous event where god created the universe too its
>present time in 6 days. So how to proceed with two seemingly
>contradictory statements?
You look at the evidence - all of which is on the side of science.
> First I will define what a miracle is.
Miracles do not exist.
>Miracle - the defying of absolute natural laws. This definition first
>provides that there must be a set of natural laws that governs the
>natural universe that completely govern the entirety of the universe.
>So let me state it more plainly: There are natural processes which
>govern the universe. This is of course why the creation was a miracle
>because if it happened that way( 6 days)
It is a fairy tale - a work of fiction.
>it would be a miraculous
>event since it would seem to squeeze 14 billion years in 6 days.
>This however is not a problem for a religious person since they can
>simply say that a miracle caused it.
>
>So to finish these comments before I ramble too much.
You already have.
> You choose to
>believe one or the other happened but no one can be tell you that
>either is a fact since each as defined above cannot disprove the
>other.
The "facts" are all on the side of science. Creationism doesn't have
any.
> As for evolution it is just another natural process that could
>have been replaced by a miracle (it is only belief which separates
>science from religion natural/supernatural).
Rubbish.
--
Bob.
snex
religion makes assertions about the natural world (and alleged other
worlds that are asserted to exist) that are not based on any logic or
empirical facts. religion further asserts that people who deny these
assertions will be punished. the reasons to accept religous assertions
are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
empirical facts. there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
these two views are fundamentally at odds with each other. you cannot
accept both without being inconsistent.
Desertphile
> Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
>
> I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
> by our society.
You mean science and scientists should give up and let occult
superstition destroy society? Do you hate humanity that much? I'm
shocked--- not even I hate mankind that much.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Desertphile
wrote:
Point #3, Some of the exclaimation points should be "1"s as well.
Jack
may be cyclical but it also may not be. Time t=0 is possible as a in
reference to the current universe and can be found using the freidman
equations.
Jack
Jack
supernatural events not natural ones. You have shown to me that you
believe to much in your own ignorance.
Jack
snex
whats a supernatural event? can you show me one? have you personally
ever seen one? has anybody?
Jack
the supernatural. As for being inconsistent by believing in both. You
are not understanding the argument. So let me try it a different
way. You are saying that you cannot believe in natural laws if you
believe in some higher power. I don't think that the assumption can be
made since especially in the Christian religion since there could
never be any miracles then!!
snex
science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
"supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
and in fact you cannot believe in natural laws if you also think those
laws can arbitrarily be broken whenever some undetected deity wants to
do so. the fact that those laws are never broken is enough reason to
believe that the supernatural is just nonsense.
Jack
all of the things in the Universe the way they should be even if it
was some 14 billion years in the future.
Furthermore,I am not arguing that some things in this universe cannot
be proved I am saying that you cannot disprove science with religion
or vice versa because one is supernatural and the other is natural.
Therefore the reasoning of each does not pertain to the other.
An example is creation that is why it was used in my short blurb. A
religious person says a miracle a scientist says natural. But the
premises of each are unique to totally unrelated ways of thinking.
Which are impossibles to compare.
Supernatural = Beyond nature
Natural = Natural Laws
By the way nice response.
Ye Old One
<dale....@comcast.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:18:56 -0700, Jack wrote:
>
>> which was created at time t = 0--
>
>there is no absolute time=0,
Wrong answer.
time is cyclical, we pursue all logical
>courses of action, then start all over again
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuga
--
Bob.
Jack
A religion based on faith would be no good if someone could prove it
to be correct. Therefore God created a universe whereby it was made
in six days but left no evidence that this was done so people could
rely on faith instead of knowledge to find there way to him.
Jack
is science job to describe the nature of the wold we live in. I also
don't believe it is not religions job to destroy science but it is to
prepare your soul for death.
I am finding that my problem was communicating my idea properly. I
apologize if it was offensive to you.
Jack
any religious based beliefs are need in a science class. Science has
to do with nature religion has to do with the Supernatural. I think
that those who want to deny science with religion are as ignorant as
those who want to deny religion using science.
Thanks for the thoughts
Cemtech
Daniel...@gmail.com says...
> I'm not too sure why a creationist would deny the miracle of creation?
Well it's one of two things or a mix of.
1) They really don't care if their position is scientific or not. They
just want to get free prostylizing ride in the public school system.
Ensuring their brand of Christianity is taught to every student. But
they fail at this, miserably.
2) They seemed to have to have some real world explaination, true or
not, for their religion. Because it's their literal interpetation. If
it said, Steve 1:14, the world is a cube, they absolutely have to have a
cubed world. Whether it's true or not. And it has to be
'scientifically' proved for them. It takes the whole concept of faith,
and throws it on it's head.
--
On creationists...
"They are stone cold...f*#!...nuts. I can't be kind
about this. Because these people watch The Flinstones
as if it were a documentary." - Lewis Black_Red, White & Screwed
Jack
whats a Big Bang event? can you show me one? have you personally
raven1
The problem with this approach is that God didn't just leave no
evidence that the universe was created in six days, He left a great
deal of evidence that it is, in fact, 14 billion years old. Faith is
one thing, but you're making God a liar if you try to maintain a
literal reading of Genesis in light of the evidence.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Jack
> science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
> because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
> something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
> "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
Supernatural - does not mean "isnt real" it means....The supernatural
(Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that
cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose
understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise
mysterious explanation -yet remains firmly outside of the realm of
science. ...wikipedia
> and in fact you cannot believe in natural laws if you also think those
> laws can arbitrarily be broken whenever some undetected deity wants to
> do so.
That is why it is SUPERNATURAL.
> the fact that those laws are never broken is enough reason to
> believe that the supernatural is just nonsense
Can you say that it is a fact that physical laws are not violated? Or
is it just in your experience that they have never been? You are
asserting a fact which can never be proved. How do you propose to
deny the existence of another universe whether natural or supernatural
with out clear evidence for lack of existence. You cannot use your
experience in this universe to claim that other universes do not exist
even if they are SUPERNATURAL.
Jack
Could God have put every single thing in place to make logical and
scientific sense that the world was created 14 billion years ago in
order to maintain the integrity of the natural laws and still have
created all of this in 6 days.
Is it possible?
snex
> Reply to snex
>
> whats a Big Bang event? can you show me one? have you personally
> ever seen one? has anybody?
dont try to shift the burden. *you* claimed that supernatural events
happen, so defend your claim.
snex
> > science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
> > because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
> > something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
> > "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
>
> Supernatural - does not mean "isnt real" it means....The supernatural
> (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that
> cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose
> understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise
> mysterious explanation -yet remains firmly outside of the realm of
> science. ...wikipedia
your description is exactly the same thing as saying "not real." if it
cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses - and humans have
no other way of perceiving things - then there is no difference
between supernatural and non-existent.
>
> > and in fact you cannot believe in natural laws if you also think those
> > laws can arbitrarily be broken whenever some undetected deity wants to
> > do so.
>
> That is why it is SUPERNATURAL.
>
> > the fact that those laws are never broken is enough reason to
> > believe that the supernatural is just nonsense
>
> Can you say that it is a fact that physical laws are not violated? Or
> is it just in your experience that they have never been? You are
> asserting a fact which can never be proved. How do you propose to
> deny the existence of another universe whether natural or supernatural
> with out clear evidence for lack of existence. You cannot use your
> experience in this universe to claim that other universes do not exist
> even if they are SUPERNATURAL.
show me a violation of physical laws. your blustering about me not
seeing every event that ever happened is pointless. what matters is
that *you* cannot present evidence for your claims.
snex
what is a "soul?" can you provide any evidence that "souls" exist? can
you explain how exactly religion prepares them for death any better
than atheism?
ayer...@hotmail.com
yes we should not fight about it,the bible gave us science. they go
hand in hand.
Jack
>happen, so defend your claim.
My claim is not that supernatural events happen it is that they are a
possibility.
T Pagano
>On Apr 15, 10:18 pm, "Jack" <Daniel.Cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
>
>religion makes assertions about the natural world (and alleged other
>worlds that are asserted to exist) that are not based on any logic or
>empirical facts.
1. Christian doctrine makes assertions about only one material
world---ours. Any premises about a non material realm is irrelevent
to the origins of our natural world.
2. Christian doctrine is underpinned (in part) by the premise that
it is an Omniscient Being with access to the absolute truth Who is
the one providing the assertions about His natural world. Snex may
dispute the underpinning; however, there is nothing illogical about
such a chain of reasoning.
3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
that Hume was mistaken.
4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
5. It is admitted that our background knowledge (snex's "facts") plays
some role in the generation of new theories. However, no one has
discovered a mechanical method to generate new theories by applying
some logical process to known facts. This is why artificial
intelligence methods will never generate genuinely "new" knowledge.
6. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
> religion further asserts that people who deny these
>assertions will be punished.
It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
creed which asserts this.
>the reasons to accept religous assertions
>are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
1. Here snex is apparently under impression that any increases in our
knowledge of the material world attributable to his dogma scientism is
decreasing our infinite ignorance.
2. The christian's faith is in an omniscient Being with access to all
of the absolute truth while snex's faith in scientism will never
extinguish his infinite ignorance.
3. "Fear" in the sense that snex undoubtedly refers is foreign to
christianity. Christians are called to fear sin as a child fears
offending his loving parent.
4. In Catholicism "T"radition not tradition guides its adherents.
Since snex hasn't cracked open a book lately he's not likely to get
this either.
5. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
>science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
>world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
>empirical facts.
1. Only an atheist with an undying and zealous faith in scientism
could make such a claim with a straight face.
2. The history of science is lttered with failure. In fact in most
instances all of the sacrosant theories throughout history have
fallen. The successes of scientism have been fleeting at best.
Darwinism and Big Bangism will also fall.
3. The hsitory of science, logic and the philosophy of science has
shown that the generation of new theories has almost nothing to do
with logic. Non trivial new theories are not nor have they ever been
simple logical deductions from our background knowledge. They have
been leaps of insight that go beyond our background knowledge. It is
only AFTER the new theory has been generated can logic be employed to
help determine the empirical consequences.
> there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
>believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
>assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
>these two views are fundamentally at odds with each other. you cannot
>accept both without being inconsistent.
Again utter nonsense. Creationists for the last 40 years have only
had to dispense with a few secular theories which already have their
share of empirical problems.
Regards,
T Pagano
snex
upon what is your claim that they are a possibility based? if one did
happen, how would you even know it if you saw it?
Jack
> show me a violation of physical laws. your blustering about me not
> seeing every event that ever happened is pointless. what matters is
> that *you* cannot present evidence for your claims.
A religious person would say that they do not need physical evidence
to support religious claims because they are supernatural. I think
that you are saying that you need evidence for anything to exist. Im
saying that that does not matter for someone who believes in the
supernatural. You can choose believe that something that is
supernatural is no-existent but you cannot disprove its existence.
Jack
> upon what is your claim that they are a possibility based? if one did
> happen, how would you even know it if you saw it?
Upon fact that the possibility for a supernatural event exists since
they cannot be proved an impossibility. It may sound a little circular
but read it a few times it does make sense.
Thanks for the conversation snex its been interesting.
John Wilkins
According to Phillip Gosse's 1856 book Creation (Omphalos) it is exactly
that. The epistemic problems, however, are massive, not to mention the
theodicial ones.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Cemtech
Daniel...@gmail.com says...
> Reply to snex
>
> whats a Big Bang event?
Well, if you are into string theory, it's two membranes colliding.
If not, then it's very, very shortly after T = 0.
> can you show me one?
Sure, wait for the sun to go down and look up. Also, set your TV to a
frequency that isn't used. Turn the contrast and brightness way down.
1 in a 100 of the white specs that appear is the Big Bang leftovers.
> have you personally
> ever seen one?
Not yet.
> has anybody?
Not yet, but maybe soon.
snex
your statement does not make any sense.
John Wilkins
> In article <1176766668.3...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Daniel...@gmail.com says...
> > Reply to snex
> >
> > whats a Big Bang event?
>
> Well, if you are into string theory, it's two membranes colliding.
Strictly, that's if you are into brane theory and ekpyrosis.
>
> If not, then it's very, very shortly after T = 0.
>
> > can you show me one?
>
> Sure, wait for the sun to go down and look up. Also, set your TV to a
> frequency that isn't used. Turn the contrast and brightness way down.
> 1 in a 100 of the white specs that appear is the Big Bang leftovers.
>
> > have you personally
> > ever seen one?
>
> Not yet.
>
> > has anybody?
>
> Not yet, but maybe soon.
--
snex
> On 16 Apr 2007 10:23:45 -0700, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 10:18 pm, "Jack" <Daniel.Cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >religion makes assertions about the natural world (and alleged other
> >worlds that are asserted to exist) that are not based on any logic or
> >empirical facts.
>
> 1. Christian doctrine makes assertions about only one material
> world---ours. Any premises about a non material realm is irrelevent
> to the origins of our natural world.
lie. christian doctrine makes assertions about "heaven," "hell,"
"purgatory," and various other realms depending on the sect.
furthermore, the assertions christianity does make about our material
world, virgin births, resurrections, and the like, are all 100%
garbage. pagano has absolutely no evidence for any of these
assertions, nor does anybody else.
>
> 2. Christian doctrine is underpinned (in part) by the premise that
> it is an Omniscient Being with access to the absolute truth Who is
> the one providing the assertions about His natural world. Snex may
> dispute the underpinning; however, there is nothing illogical about
> such a chain of reasoning.
the great step of illogic that pagano missed is the part where he
thinks he has access to this omniscient being's thoughts. pagano has
absolutely no way to know whether or not omniscient beings exist, and
if they do, how to gain access to their knowledge. nor can he tell the
difference between said being speaking to him and a paranoid
schizophrenic fantasy. even beyond that, if an omniscient being
*really did* speak to pagano, he would have no way to determine that
it was telling the truth.
pagano's "faith" is dead in the water no matter which way you slice
it.
>
> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> that Hume was mistaken.
and this has what to do with religious claims? that theories can never
be proven universally true is not a license to utter nonsense and
expect anybody to take it seriously. do you take the assertions of l.
ron hubbard seriously? why or why not?
>
> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
again, this has what to do with religous claims? malthus' theory was
based on economic facts. whether or not it applies universally is
irrelevant. there are situations where it does apply, and the same
holds for darwin's theory.
>
> 5. It is admitted that our background knowledge (snex's "facts") plays
> some role in the generation of new theories. However, no one has
> discovered a mechanical method to generate new theories by applying
> some logical process to known facts. This is why artificial
> intelligence methods will never generate genuinely "new" knowledge.
this has what to do with religious claims? does pagano think that this
paragraph gives him license to utter anything he wants and that we
must take him seriously?
>
> 6. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
>
> > religion further asserts that people who deny these
> >assertions will be punished.
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
> goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
> creed which asserts this.
pagano has apparently never read the bible! even jesus himself asserts
that hell exists and that certain people will suffer there eternally.
here is one example, in matthew 25:46: "Then they will go away to
eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
>
> >the reasons to accept religous assertions
> >are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
>
> 1. Here snex is apparently under impression that any increases in our
> knowledge of the material world attributable to his dogma scientism is
> decreasing our infinite ignorance.
is pagano asserting that religious assertions arent based on
ignorance? would pagano apply this reasoning to *all* religious
assertions, or only his own? if only his own, upon what does he base
this arrogance?
>
> 2. The christian's faith is in an omniscient Being with access to all
> of the absolute truth while snex's faith in scientism will never
> extinguish his infinite ignorance.
perhaps pagano can access some of this omniscient being's knowledge in
order to demonstrate that he really exists. if pagano can tell me what
i will eat for dinner tomorrow, then i will consider this good
evidence for his omniscient being's existence.
>
> 3. "Fear" in the sense that snex undoubtedly refers is foreign to
> christianity. Christians are called to fear sin as a child fears
> offending his loving parent.
no, pagano, fear in the sense of fear of eternal punishment in hell
for disbelieving in the claims of religion. although not all religions
have hell, most if not all do have some form of punishment for
disbelief - and all forms of christianity have hell.
>
> 4. In Catholicism "T"radition not tradition guides its adherents.
> Since snex hasn't cracked open a book lately he's not likely to get
> this either.
tradition is not a reliable guide to truth.
>
> 5. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
>
> >science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
> >world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
> >empirical facts.
>
> 1. Only an atheist with an undying and zealous faith in scientism
> could make such a claim with a straight face.
and yet pagano does nothing to refute it. he is posturing like a
gorilla hoping his long winded posts with no real content will scare
me away, but he is dreadfully wrong.
>
> 2. The history of science is lttered with failure. In fact in most
> instances all of the sacrosant theories throughout history have
> fallen. The successes of scientism have been fleeting at best.
> Darwinism and Big Bangism will also fall.
you mean like heliocentrism? germ theory? meterorology? if pagano
really believes this bit of nonsense, he has serious brain problems
and should seek help immediately.
in fact, despite failures of individual scientists, science is
remarkably successful. science is directly responsible for pagano's
ability to post his twaddle on the internet, for the infant death rate
dropping drastically, for curing and treating pagano's diseases and
health problems, for building and powering the car pagano drives, and
billions of other things he takes for granted every single minute of
every single day.
>
> 3. The hsitory of science, logic and the philosophy of science has
> shown that the generation of new theories has almost nothing to do
> with logic. Non trivial new theories are not nor have they ever been
> simple logical deductions from our background knowledge. They have
> been leaps of insight that go beyond our background knowledge. It is
> only AFTER the new theory has been generated can logic be employed to
> help determine the empirical consequences.
nor did i claim that the generation of new theories was based on
logic. pagano explains himself where logic comes in, yet he makes the
strawman anyway. what is it with pagano and dishonesty?
perhaps pagano can give us a few religious assertions that have ever
generated any useful empirical consequences whatsoever in the entire
history of the universe.
>
> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>
> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
hilarious! the list of nobel prize winners is filled with men who have
disputed long held theories. pagano is just sour grapes because his
favorite religious mythology just happens to be false. the honest
thing to do is to abandon your false mythology, not cry foul that
science doesnt work because science doesnt validate it for you.
science doesnt care what your favorite mythology is, nor does it care
about my atheism. if gods exist, and science discovers them, then i
will do the honest thing and accept it. but we all know that science
shows no gods anywhere, so where is pagano's honesty in admitting
this?
>
>
>
> >these two views are fundamentally at odds with each other. you cannot
> >accept both without being inconsistent.
>
> Again utter nonsense. Creationists for the last 40 years have only
> had to dispense with a few secular theories which already have their
> share of empirical problems.
creationists have never dispensed with any theory whatsoever.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
snex
that is a fundamentally dishonest position. if what you say is true,
then i can claim *anything i want* and then declare that i am off
limits to criticism because what i claimed was "supernatural." is this
how you really think people should act? would you send your child to a
doctor who asserted that prayer and prayer alone was how we should
treat disease?
Cemtech
@uq.edu.au says...
> Cemtech <cm...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1176766668.3...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Daniel...@gmail.com says...
> > > Reply to snex
> > >
> > > whats a Big Bang event?
> >
> > Well, if you are into string theory, it's two membranes colliding.
>
> Strictly, that's if you are into brane theory and ekpyrosis.
Crud, now I have to look something up. =)
> > If not, then it's very, very shortly after T = 0.
> >
> > > can you show me one?
> >
> > Sure, wait for the sun to go down and look up. Also, set your TV to a
> > frequency that isn't used. Turn the contrast and brightness way down.
> > 1 in a 100 of the white specs that appear is the Big Bang leftovers.
> >
> > > have you personally
> > > ever seen one?
> >
> > Not yet.
> >
> > > has anybody?
> >
> > Not yet, but maybe soon.
>
>
>
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Desertphile
wrote:
> It is true that the nature of time is debated. It is true that time
> may be cyclical but it also may not be. Time t=0 is possible as a in
> reference to the current universe and can be found using the freidman
> equations.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
"nym-shifting" is banned in talk.origins, Dale.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
Codebreaker
Not too bad
snex
why would a god want us to use faith? what benefit is there to that?
relying on faith is a *guaranteed* way to ensure that the vast
majority of people get it wrong and go to hell for having the
misfortune of being born to parents who got it wrong.
Desertphile
wrote:
>
>
> > science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
> > because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
> > something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
> > "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
> Supernatural - does not mean "isnt real" it means....The supernatural
> (Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that
> cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses, and whose
> understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise
> mysterious explanation -yet remains firmly outside of the realm of
> science. ...wikipedia
Or in other words, "supernatural" means "isn't real." Thank you
for clearing that up.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> that Hume was mistaken.
>
Perhaps we need to take some things a priori without justification so
we that can justify anything at all. Yet, I still think there is a
difference in reasonableness between accepting the validity of
induction a priori, and accepting the existence of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster a priori. I think this is the sort of thing that led
the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey to say, "The truth is that which
works."
> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
>
Cite please?
> > religion further asserts that people who deny these
> >assertions will be punished.
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
> goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
> creed which asserts this.
>
Try John 3:18.
> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>
> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
Give an example. Also, creationists, though they have no peer-reviewed
support, have had no trouble disseminating their views through other
media. I doubt that many biologists are unfamiliar with creationism,
and many are quite familiar with it.
Steven J.
> On 16 Apr 2007 10:23:45 -0700, "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 15, 10:18 pm, "Jack" <Daniel.Cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> >religion makes assertions about the natural world (and alleged other
> >worlds that are asserted to exist) that are not based on any logic or
> >empirical facts.
>
> 1. Christian doctrine makes assertions about only one material
> world---ours. Any premises about a non material realm is irrelevent
> to the origins of our natural world.
>
Richard Dawkins, Roman Catholicism asserts, as dogma, that after her
earthly life, the Virgin Mary was assumed bodily into heaven. In
time, according to most understandings of traditional Christianity,
all the saints will be bodily resurrected and taken into heaven as
well. A physical body needs a physical space to occupy, and a
material realm for survival and comfort. Therefore, logically,
Christianity makes assertions about at least two material realms. In
any case, snex spoke of "the natural world" and "alleged other
(presumably supernatural) worlds," so it would not be relevant to his
assertion even if you were right.
>
> 2. Christian doctrine is underpinned (in part) by the premise that
> it is an Omniscient Being with access to the absolute truth Who is
> the one providing the assertions about His natural world. Snex may
> dispute the underpinning; however, there is nothing illogical about
> such a chain of reasoning.
>
illogical" about the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent being; at
least, the idea has been criticized as incoherent by some
philosophers. Please note, by the way, that you have two assertions
and an assumption here: that an Omniscient Being exists, that
particular assertions about the natural world were given by Him
(rather than by, e.g. fallible humans purporting to act in his name),
and that you have correctly interpreted these assertions.
>
> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> that Hume was mistaken.
>
logic. Neither do you, of course. You have, in the past, argued that
the "chirality problem" militates against naturalistic abiogenesis, an
argument that makes little sense unless one assumes that amassed facts
(e.g. the fact that nonbiological production of nucleotides and amino
acids always yields a racemic mixture) is reason to suppose that a
theory (that naturalistic production of enantiomerically pure strings
of nucleotides or amino acids is impossible) is probably true.
Likewise, your insistence that multiple eyewitnesses (assuming, for
the sake of argument, that your description of them is correct) is
some reason to assume that a miracle really occurred at Fatima belies
your claim above that evidence is ultimately meaningless as a guide to
truth or probable truth. How can you ask us to take seriously an
argument you don't take seriously yourself?
>
> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
>
(demonstrated many times) that all organisms are capable of
reproducing fast enough to fill the environment and exhaust its
resources faster than they can be renewed. He assumed that humans, or
at least lower-class humans, would never restrain their reproduction
except as constrained to do so by hunger and exhaustion; it is
irrelevant to natural selection and common descent whether this is
true of modern human beings or not.
>
> 5. It is admitted that our background knowledge (snex's "facts") plays
> some role in the generation of new theories. However, no one has
> discovered a mechanical method to generate new theories by applying
> some logical process to known facts. This is why artificial
> intelligence methods will never generate genuinely "new" knowledge.
>
equal "no one ever will discover a method." There seems no reason to
take your assertion any more seriously than the assertion, once
confidently advanced, that no computer could possibly beat a human
player at chess. It's also not clear what your assertion in (5) has
to do with any claim of snex's.
>
> 6. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
>
interpretation of those facts, why should it matter to you whether he
has a clue?
>
> > religion further asserts that people who deny these
> >assertions will be punished.
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
> goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
> creed which asserts this.
>
the Earth in six literal days, or that humans do not share common
ancestry with apes. Most Christian sects have doctrinal claims that
go beyond their creedal statements. Did not Pope Benedict XVI just
recently issue a statement emphasizing that a literal Hell existed?
Is it not a tenet of traditional Christianity that those who reject
Christ (and thus, the Christian assertions about Christ) will end up
in Hell?
>
> >the reasons to accept religous assertions
> >are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
>
> 1. Here snex is apparently under impression that any increases in our
> knowledge of the material world attributable to his dogma scientism is
> decreasing our infinite ignorance.
>
finite number of possible facts about the universe. How can our
ignorance be infinite, if the number of things that we can be ignorant
of are finite?
>
> 2. The christian's faith is in an omniscient Being with access to all
> of the absolute truth while snex's faith in scientism will never
> extinguish his infinite ignorance.
>
convincing apologetic when you argue that knowledge is impossible, and
therefore evolution, young-earth creationism, and the flying spaghetti
monster are all equally reasonable and equally supported by the
evidence.
>
> 3. "Fear" in the sense that snex undoubtedly refers is foreign to
> christianity. Christians are called to fear sin as a child fears
> offending his loving parent.
>
conventional sense of "fear," being rejected by their religious peers,
condemned by their religious leaders, losing their sense of place and
purpose in life, or being hurled into Hell by an angry God? Snex is
not discussing theology, here, he is making statements about the
individual and group psychology of religious belief and observance.
>
> 4. In Catholicism "T"radition not tradition guides its adherents.
> Since snex hasn't cracked open a book lately he's not likely to get
> this either.
>
down to you, and reject other beliefs that people have tried to hand
down to you. But no one who accepts tradition places equal emphasis
on all traditions, and most will reject some traditions that
contradict their own. Tony, perhaps the single most frustrating thing
about you is your insistence on distinguishing "absolute truth" from
any objective means of investigating reality, and identifying it with
subjective dogma.
>
> 5. In other words: snex doesn't have a clue.
>
relieved only by adherence to dogma handed down by Tradition (which we
are assured, by those who hand it down to us, has a capital "T"), what
good would it do snex to have a clue? He'd still be, like everyone
else, infinitely ignorant.
>
> >science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
> >world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
> >empirical facts.
>
> 1. Only an atheist with an undying and zealous faith in scientism
> could make such a claim with a straight face.
>
that evidence is no reason to believe a proposition, to the deeply
wacky assertion that evidence and logic have nothing even to do with
the propositions of science. I think that Pope Benedict would like a
word or two with you about reason and faith.
Or perhaps you are attempting to defend Catholicism by implying that
snex's criticisms do not apply to it, but to lunatic variants of it
such as your own beliefs.
>
> 2. The history of science is lttered with failure. In fact in most
> instances all of the sacrosant theories throughout history have
> fallen. The successes of scientism have been fleeting at best.
> Darwinism and Big Bangism will also fall.
>
This is not really true, of course. Newton did not overthrow so much
as refine and correct the heliocentric theories of Copernicus, and
Einstein, in his turn, left Newton as a good approximation of the laws
of physics in most mundane circumstances. Obviously and of course
Einstein did not suddenly make geocentric astronomy more plausible,
and whoever ends up playing Einstein to Darwin's Newton will not bring
back separate origins or a young Earth.
>
> 3. The hsitory of science, logic and the philosophy of science has
> shown that the generation of new theories has almost nothing to do
> with logic. Non trivial new theories are not nor have they ever been
> simple logical deductions from our background knowledge. They have
> been leaps of insight that go beyond our background knowledge. It is
> only AFTER the new theory has been generated can logic be employed to
> help determine the empirical consequences.
>
Tony, I think logic plays a larger role in the generation of new
theories than you allow here: Darwin, for example, reasoned logically
in seeking a mechanism for common descent with modification, noting
that selective breeding could produce similar effects, and ransacking
"background knowledge" for something that could do the work of
selective breeding without intelligent guidance. But, on the other
hand, the structure of benzene came to its discoverer in a dream,
which is not really logical. The point is that logic and evidence
play a part in judging and refining theories, no matter how they are
generated, and this distinguishes scientific propositions from
religious ones.
>
> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>
> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
You suspect a lot of really silly things. You wish to believe, of
course, that ID is held in contempt because it rejects "naturalism,"
when it is held in contempt because its proponents lie about the
evidence, and offer an utterly vacuous argument from ignorance. You
wish to believe that there really must, somehow, somewhere, be
evidence for a young earth and a global flood which is being
suppressed by evil atheistic peer reviewers (in the most religious
Christian country on Earth, where much science is funded by executive
branch agencies at least influenced by a creationist administration).
You speak of theories being "sacrosanct," because that is much easier
psychologically than admitting that the arguments against these
theories fail miserably factually and logically.
>
>
> >these two views are fundamentally at odds with each other. you cannot
> >accept both without being inconsistent.
>
> Again utter nonsense. Creationists for the last 40 years have only
> had to dispense with a few secular theories which already have their
> share of empirical problems.
>
Tony, you just posted repeated assertions that the entire scientific
world view -- that reality can be understood by testing theories
against the evidence -- is fundamentally mistaken. Your personal form
of creationism requires rejecting pretty much every aspect of
radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, cosmology, genetics, and,
hell, history and archaeology to boot.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Josh Hayes
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
> because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
> something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
> "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
I usually clarify this to people by saying that science makes, really, only
one assumption, one article of faith: the universe doesn't lie.
Once you accept that assumption, the rest of science follows, but you have
to believe that observations are, in fact, real and accurate. Of course,
without that assumption, one is left with nihilism, but there are some
Omphalos-spouting religious types who nevertheless fall back to that
position, and would be horrified to hear it called that.
-JAH
snex
> "snex" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in news:1176764360.662151.12940
it isnt even faith to say that the universe doesnt lie. it is based on
pragmatics. if assuming that the universe lies starts working for us,
we will switch to that assumption and try to make due. *nothing* is
sacred in science.
Bobby Bryant
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> writes:
> On Apr 16, 6:16 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> 2. The history of science is lttered with failure. In fact in most
>> instances all of the sacrosant theories throughout history have
>> fallen. The successes of scientism have been fleeting at best.
>> Darwinism and Big Bangism will also fall.
>>
> This is not really true, of course. Newton did not overthrow so much
> as refine and correct the heliocentric theories of Copernicus, and
> Einstein, in his turn, left Newton as a good approximation of the laws
> of physics in most mundane circumstances. Obviously and of course
> Einstein did not suddenly make geocentric astronomy more plausible,
> and whoever ends up playing Einstein to Darwin's Newton will not bring
> back separate origins or a young Earth.
Indeed, what we infallibly find is that the revised theories take us
even _further_ from our traditional and intuitive understanding of how
the universe works.
>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>>
> You suspect a lot of really silly things. You wish to believe, of
> course, that ID is held in contempt because it rejects "naturalism,"
> when it is held in contempt because its proponents lie about the
> evidence, and offer an utterly vacuous argument from ignorance. You
> wish to believe that there really must, somehow, somewhere, be
> evidence for a young earth and a global flood which is being
> suppressed by evil atheistic peer reviewers (in the most religious
> Christian country on Earth, where much science is funded by executive
> branch agencies at least influenced by a creationist administration).
> You speak of theories being "sacrosanct," because that is much easier
> psychologically than admitting that the arguments against these
> theories fail miserably factually and logically.
Like other militant creationists, Tony has to invent a secondary
fantasy to explain to himself why the real world doesnt' conform
to his primary fantasy.
>> Again utter nonsense. Creationists for the last 40 years have only
>> had to dispense with a few secular theories which already have their
>> share of empirical problems.
>
> Tony, you just posted repeated assertions that the entire scientific
> world view -- that reality can be understood by testing theories
> against the evidence -- is fundamentally mistaken. Your personal form
> of creationism requires rejecting pretty much every aspect of
> radiometric dating, geology, astronomy, cosmology, genetics, and,
> hell, history and archaeology to boot.
Tony seems to think creationism has actually made some progress in
the scientific realm.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Ok this is my last post.
>
>Could God have put every single thing in place to make logical and
>scientific sense that the world was created 14 billion years ago in
>order to maintain the integrity of the natural laws and still have
>created all of this in 6 days.
>
>
>Is it possible?
No.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>It is true that the nature of time is debated. It is true that time
>may be cyclical but it also may not be. Time t=0 is possible as a in
>reference to the current universe and can be found using the freidman
>equations.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations
What have those to do with it?
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>You
Who?
> need to understand that religion is a system of beliefs based on
>supernatural events not natural ones. You
Who?
> have shown to me that you
Who?
>
>believe to much in your
Whose?
> own ignorance.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>>whats a supernatural event? can you show me one? have you personally
>>ever seen one? has anybody?
Moronic posting style corrected.
>Reply to snex
>
>whats a Big Bang event?
The rapid expansion of the universe which occurred fractionally after
t=0.
> can you show me one?
Yes, though you would have to understand a lot of maths to see it.
> have you personally
>ever seen one?
My maths don't quite go that high, but I've caught glimpses of it.
> has anybody?
Oh yes.
>
--
Bob.
Numerous
wrote:
>"snex" <sn...@comcast.net> wrote in news:1176764360.662151.12940
>@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
>> because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
>> something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
>> "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
>
>I usually clarify this to people by saying that science makes, really, only
>one assumption, one article of faith: the universe doesn't lie.
>
No, but human perception and interpretation often does.
The ToE / ID debate is a good example of how differenly humans can
perceive and interprete the exact same phenomena.
Basically it's about how much knowledge you have - the more you know
the more correct your picture of reality usually is. Just be careful
not to confuse knowledge and information. Science has a lot of
information from observations, but in most contexts not enough
knowledge to interprete that information correctly. ToE is an example
of such a faulty interpretation.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>In article <1176766668.3...@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>Daniel...@gmail.com says...
>> Reply to snex
>>
>> whats a Big Bang event?
>
>Well, if you are into string theory, it's two membranes colliding.
Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
>
>If not, then it's very, very shortly after T = 0.
>
>> can you show me one?
>
>Sure, wait for the sun to go down and look up. Also, set your TV to a
>frequency that isn't used. Turn the contrast and brightness way down.
>1 in a 100 of the white specs that appear is the Big Bang leftovers.
>
>> have you personally
>> ever seen one?
>
>Not yet.
>
>> has anybody?
>
>Not yet, but maybe soon.
Remember, scientists do not just see with their eyes, they also see
with maths.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>> show me a violation of physical laws. your blustering about me not
>> seeing every event that ever happened is pointless. what matters is
>> that *you* cannot present evidence for your claims.
>
>A religious person would say that they do not need physical evidence
>to support religious claims because they are supernatural.
Which is the same as saying they do not exist.
> I think
>that you are saying that you need evidence for anything to exist.
Yes, you got it.
> Im
>saying that that does not matter for someone who believes in the
>supernatural. You can choose believe that something that is
>supernatural is no-existent but you cannot disprove its existence.
You don't disprove anything.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>> science isnt based on faith at all. science sticks to what's natural
>> because thats all anybody ever observes. if somebody observes
>> something else, it will be amenable to science. calling something
>> "supernatural" is just a euphamism for saying it isnt real.
>
>Supernatural - does not mean "isnt real" it means....The supernatural
>(Latin:super- "exceeding"+nature) comprises forces and phenomena that
>cannot be perceived by natural or empirical senses,
in other words, they do not exist.
> and whose
>understanding may be said to lie with religious, magical, or otherwise
>mysterious explanation -yet remains firmly outside of the realm of
>science. ...wikipedia
>
>> and in fact you cannot believe in natural laws if you also think those
>> laws can arbitrarily be broken whenever some undetected deity wants to
>> do so.
>
>That is why it is SUPERNATURAL.
Which doesn't exist.
>
>> the fact that those laws are never broken is enough reason to
>> believe that the supernatural is just nonsense
>
>Can you say that it is a fact that physical laws are not violated? Or
>is it just in your experience that they have never been? You are
>asserting a fact which can never be proved. How do you propose to
>deny the existence of another universe whether natural or supernatural
>with out clear evidence for lack of existence. You cannot use your
>experience in this universe to claim that other universes do not exist
>even if they are SUPERNATURAL.
If you have evidence of a supernatural event/force then bring it on.
If science gets evidence of such an event/force then, by definition,
it is no longer supernatural.
--
Bob.
Bloopen...@juno.com
> Basically it's about how much knowledge you have - the more you know
> the more correct your picture of reality usually is. Just be careful
> not to confuse knowledge and information. Science has a lot of
> information from observations, but in most contexts not enough
> knowledge to interprete that information correctly. ToE is an example
> of such a faulty interpretation.
How is ToE a faulty interpretation?
ayer...@hotmail.com
1 timothy 6:20,21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of
science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred
concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. [[[The first to
Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of
Phrygia Pacatiana.]]]
Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and
skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding
science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's
palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the
Chaldeans. http://www.blbi.org/
Maybe some will fine the truth, about science before it's to late. God
gave us science, so we could find the truth,not to prove evolution,
snex
> On Apr 17, 9:57 am, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> > On Apr 17, 5:26 am, Numerous <numer...@addr.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > Basically it's about how much knowledge you have - the more you know
> > > the more correct your picture of reality usually is. Just be careful
> > > not to confuse knowledge and information. Science has a lot of
> > > information from observations, but in most contexts not enough
> > > knowledge to interprete that information correctly. ToE is an example
> > > of such a faulty interpretation.
>
> > How is ToE a faulty interpretation?
>
> 1 timothy 6:20,21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
> trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of
> science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred
> concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen. [[[The first to
> Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of
> Phrygia Pacatiana.]]]
> Dan 1:4 Children in whom [was] no blemish, but well favoured, and
> skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding
> science, and such as [had] ability in them to stand in the king's
> palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the
> Maybe some will fine the truth, about science before it's to late. God
> gave us science, so we could find the truth,not to prove evolution,
you didnt answer his question.
ayer...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
knowledge and information, are nothing without understanding truth
snex
you still didnt answer his question.
raven1
>Ok this is my last post.
>
>Could God have put every single thing in place to make logical and
>scientific sense that the world was created 14 billion years ago in
>order to maintain the integrity of the natural laws and still have
>created all of this in 6 days.
>
>
>Is it possible?
If God intended to deceive us, sure, but why?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
Bloopen...@juno.com
How can you act like an amateur philosopher of science in one post,
and a mystic in another?
Bloopen...@juno.com
parrotted two bible verses that could go against "creation science" or
ID as much as ToE.
So, let's start fresh--why is ToE a faulty interpretation of the data
at hand?
AC
Jack <Daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Science is based on faith in the natural religion is based on faith in
> the supernatural. As for being inconsistent by believing in both. You
> are not understanding the argument. So let me try it a different
> way. You are saying that you cannot believe in natural laws if you
> believe in some higher power. I don't think that the assumption can be
> made since especially in the Christian religion since there could
> never be any miracles then!!
Science is based on the premise that the universe behaves in a regular
and predictable fashion which can be modelled.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Jesus Christ Supermodel
> Why science and religion should stop fighting!!!
>
> I find it interesting that religion and science seem to be set at odds
> by our society. Evolution is taken to be against the creation story
> for Christians. This however makes no sense to me. How can a natural
> events and supernatural events be debated? Well i would argue that in
> the case of the creation story it is impossible. As a scientist the
> evidence supports a universe which is around 14 billion years old
> which was created at time t = 0 (in our universe). But this of course
> is a natural description of our universe. The creation story is the
> product of a miraculous event where god created the universe too its
> present time in 6 days. So how to proceed with two seemingly
> contradictory statements? First I will define what a miracle is.
> Miracle - the defying of absolute natural laws. This definition first
> provides that there must be a set of natural laws that governs the
> natural universe that completely govern the entirety of the universe.
> So let me state it more plainly: There are natural processes which
> govern the universe. This is of course why the creation was a miracle
> because if it happened that way( 6 days) it would be a miraculous
> event since it would seem to squeeze 14 billion years in 6 days.
> This however is not a problem for a religious person since they can
> simply say that a miracle caused it.
>
> So to finish these comments before I ramble too much. You choose to
> believe one or the other happened but no one can be tell you that
> either is a fact since each as defined above cannot disprove the
> other. As for evolution it is just another natural process that could
> have been replaced by a miracle (it is only belief which separates
> science from religion natural/supernatural).
Man, if creationists just said "I believe that creation is a miracle
outside the realm of science and therefore find ToE to be completely
irrelevant to my beliefs", we could all walk away from the debate and
leave eachother alone. However, (1) this newsgroup is replete with
creationist claims that science is wrong about human origins (which is
the reason the newsgroup was created anyway - to keep them off of the
'real' NG's), (2) history teaches us that religious groups with power
will threaten any scientific theory that compromises their dogma (It
took the Catholic church quite a while to accept that, yes, the earth
revolves around the sun), and (3) Creationism is highly politicized
and is really about defeating secularism using ID propoganda as their
weapon.
So no, it's silly to think that all of this is about whether or not
the debate is rational. It's about keeping the volume up on the ToE
side to counter the volume produced on the creationist side. It took
me a while to realize this, and until I did I kept trying to come up
with a rational way to approach the argument. I've learned however,
that the creationists who post here are incapable of rationally
evaluating the arguments, the evidence, or their beliefs (and there
seperability from science). They simply aren't interested. I'd guess
that 95% of Christians don't have a problem with ToE, pay lip service
to creationism on the surface but don't feel compelled to be activists
about it, or don't find an incompatibility with it and consider it a
nonissue. But that remaining percentage... they are the dangerous
ones, and while they absolutely have the right to express their
opinions, it would be a very bad thing if they went unchallenged. I
don't have the patience to consistenly challenge them, but there are
plenty of people who participate in TO that do, and I am glad for
them.
So why would God create the world and everything in it in a way that
makes it impossible to reconcile with natural observation? I don't
really care. If you're up for accepting miracles, no amount of
discord is unresolvable. The interesting question is why those
creationists who post here feel that God isn't capable of those kinds
of miracles, so it must be the science that is wrong. The irony is
that, by opening up creationism to scientific debate, they are hurting
their cause and think they are helping it. I guess I'm most glad that
they are hard headed enough to keep doing it.
snex
wrote:
why do you think that we could all just walk away from the debate and
leave each other alone if irrationalists were to simply admit that
they were irrational? if your loved ones die due to the incompetence
of a doctor, will you accept "it was god's will" as his answer or will
you sue him into oblivion?
Mark Isaak
> Let me suggest a third possible scenario.
>
> A religion based on faith would be no good if someone could prove it
> to be correct.
A religion which effectively guides people on how to live a better
life, and which does so reliably and provably, would of course be the
best thing to ever happen to mankind. However, a religion which is
provable would be no good to the priest caste, so it is not likely to
happen anytime soon.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
AC
Jack <Daniel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok this is my last post.
>
> Could God have put every single thing in place to make logical and
> scientific sense that the world was created 14 billion years ago in
> order to maintain the integrity of the natural laws and still have
> created all of this in 6 days.
>
>
> Is it possible?
Well, I personally know that it was in fact the Invisible Pink Unicorn
that did it last Thursday.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Cemtech
use...@mcsuk.net says...
Exactly, which does make String Theory a bit of controversy. It's math
is precise, but how to test for it? =( It's so small, it seems hard to
figure out a way to test for.
--
Steve "Chris" Price
Associate Professor of Computational Aesthetics
Amish Chair of Electrical Engineering
University of Ediacara "A fine tradition since 530,000,000 BC"
Ye Old One
There are a few ideas, a couple of which may have results when the new
super collider opens for business.
--
Bob.
Cory Albrecht
> yes we should not fight about it,the bible gave us science. they go
> hand in hand.
In the "Glad I wasn't eating or drinking when I read that" category.
Cemtech
Walter Bushell
Cemtech <cm...@cox.net> wrote:
If you can't test a theory, refer it to the theology department.
Walter Bushell
AC <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote:
No, no no. the world won't be created until next Thursday.
T Pagano
>On Apr 16, 8:16 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
>> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
>> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
>> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
>> that Hume was mistaken.
>>
>
>Perhaps we need to take some things a priori without justification so
>we that can justify anything at all.
Regardless justification is a cheap imitation of what we really
seek----objective truth.
In axiomatiized mathematical systems a set of axioms are introduced "a
priori". Every other statement is derived via some logical rules and
as such cannot go beyond the truths already contained within the
axioms themselves. And Godel proved that such systems cannot generale
all of the truths. How then would we justify additional truths
dreamed up by some mathematician?
If truth is the goal in science why do we need justifations?
Justification can't tell us anything about the truth value of some
statement or even about its probability of truth.
>Yet, I still think there is a
>difference in reasonableness between accepting the validity of
>induction a priori,
This is one place where "a priorism" won't help. Induction is
indisputably logically invalid. In valid deductive arguments the
conclusion cannot contain anything not already contained within the
premises and truth is transmitted from premises to conclusion. In
so-called inductive arguments the conclusion does go beyond the
premises. There is no logical connection between the truth value of
the conclusion and the premises.
> and accepting the existence of the Flying
>Spaghetti Monster a priori.
I doubt there is a qualitative difference between assuming the
existence of a "flying spaghetti monster" and assuming that a dinosaur
forearm transformed into an avian wing. Neither have been observed.
Nevertheless admitting something for consideration without any
justification whatsoever is never a problem so long as it is
provisional and genuine efforts are made to test and remove the claim
if found false.
>I think this is the sort of thing that led
>the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey to say, "The truth is that which
>works."
This is subjectivism not a genuine interest in the objective truth.
>
>> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
>> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
>> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
>>
>
>Cite please?
Please see: "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin". I'm referring to
the Dover Publication's edition first pulished in 1958. See
especially p42.
Darwin never cited Malthus's work in "Origin of Species" (or as near
as I can tell Malthus); however, Chapter III, "Struggle for Existence"
is based upon it.
>
>> > religion further asserts that people who deny these
>> >assertions will be punished.
>>
>> It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
>> goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
>> creed which asserts this.
>>
>
>Try John 3:18.
This is balanced by John 3:16-17. Furthermore John 3:19-21 makes
clear that those condemned will be condemned by their own works not
for some mere conscious disbelief.
No christian creed (or any other relgious creed for that matter)
asserts eternal punishment for the mere disbelief in Genesis 1-3 as
actual history.
>
>> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
>> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
>> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>>
>> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
>> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
>> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
>> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
>> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
>> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
>Give an example.
Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>Also, creationists, though they have no peer-reviewed
>support,
If peer reviewers had some special insight into all of the objective
truth unavailable to the rest of us one might consider Creationist
lack of peer review support to be significant. As it is peer review
has served no other purpose than to effectively maintain whatever pet
theories are reigning at the time.
> have had no trouble disseminating their views through other
>media. I doubt that many biologists are unfamiliar with creationism,
>and many are quite familiar with it.
I doubt very seriously that they are familiar with creationism since
those works in print are only rarely available at public or collegiate
libraries. ID theory works are generally available everywhere.
The misrepresentations of ID theory, for example, by secularists are
significant which means that either you are mistaken or these same
people are disingenuous.
Regards,
T Pagano
Bloopen...@juno.com
All right, I'll have to think about your other points, but for now, I
should point out that
> >Give an example.
>
> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
Yeah, but he was still able to get peer-reviewed articles published.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
AC
Bloopen...@juno.com
> On 16 Apr 2007 19:40:49 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 8:16 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> >> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> >> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> >> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> >> that Hume was mistaken.
>
> >Perhaps we need to take some things a priori without justification so
> >we that can justify anything at all.
>
> Regardless justification is a cheap imitation of what we really
> seek----objective truth.
>
> In axiomatiized mathematical systems a set of axioms are introduced "a
> priori". Every other statement is derived via some logical rules and
> as such cannot go beyond the truths already contained within the
> axioms themselves. And Godel proved that such systems cannot generale
> all of the truths. How then would we justify additional truths
> dreamed up by some mathematician?
>
> If truth is the goal in science why do we need justifations?
> Justification can't tell us anything about the truth value of some
> statement or even about its probability of truth.
>
I can't understand what your saying. In science we seek knowledge.
Knowledge is justified true belief. There are some problems with this
definition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem) but I
don't believe they concern us here. I maintain that in order for a
belief to qualify as knowledge, it requires some kind of
justification. Otherwise, it is an irrational faith.
Justification=reason to believe, proof, warrant, supporting
statements. If a justification cannot tell us about the truth value of
some statement or even about its probability of truth, it isn't
justification anymore. It's just a statement floating in cognitive
space.
The context that this discussion came up in is as follows.
Jack, the original poster said that "I find it interesting that
religion and science seem to be set at odds by our society." He seemed
to advocate an omphalos view of creation. Snex replied, saying that:
> religion makes assertions about the natural world (and alleged other
> worlds that are asserted to exist) that are not based on any logic or
> empirical facts. religion further asserts that people who deny these
> assertions will be punished. the reasons to accept religous assertions
> are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
> science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
> world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
> empirical facts. there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
You submitted a rebuttal. One of the things you said was that:
> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> that Hume was mistaken.
How could this be relevant unless you regarded it as essentially a
refutation of empirical knowledge? Why else would you phrase it that
way, and condemn snex's "scientism" elsewhere in your post? So I
responded:
> Perhaps we need to take some things a priori without justification so
> we that can justify anything at all. Yet, I still think there is a
> difference in reasonableness between accepting the validity of
> induction a priori, and accepting the existence of the Flying
> Spaghetti Monster a priori. I think this is the sort of thing that led
> the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey to say, "The truth is that which
> works."
I concede that the simple observation-and-induction view is outmoded
as a philosophy of science. The reason I put down "induction" is that
what David Hume was talking about is the "problem of induction." I was
trying to say that Hume's problem of induction cannot be seen as
making an attempt at empirical knowledge of the universe invalid.
Every day, to survive, we accept that such as an attempt is valid,
even if we cannot show why it is. We turn the knob next to the sink
faucet and expect water to come out. I'm riding on my bike and I
expect it will be easier to pedal if I lower the gear, but I'll go
slower. I see a creationist or ID post on this NG and expect that it
will be buried under about 15 pro-evolution posts. A rational attempt
to move the ideas in our head closer to the reality we are perceiving
through our senses is possible, and it is science. This is true
whether you go with the classical inductive view, or the Popperian
falsification view, or any view of science short of Paul Feyerabend's
postmodern anarchism. To accept the validity of science, even without
proof, produces far more useful results than, say, accepting the
existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster without any proof. John
Dewey believed that truth was successful rules for action. Good
science does produce successful rules for action. Businesses would not
hire industry scientists otherwise. Therefore, in his view, it is
true. I do not necessarily subscribe to all his views, I was simply
pointing out an interesting idea.
bro...@noguchi.mimcom.net
> On 16 Apr 2007 19:40:49 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 8:16 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >Give an example.
>
> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
Well, he was massively and dangerously wrong about AIDS. (In spite of
which he managed to generate a set of supporters). His support for a
non-HIV cause of AIDS was used by Thabo Mbeki in South Africa to delay
implementation of preventive measures that could have saved many
people from a fatal illness.
I am not sure that the HIV-causes AIDS theory (or any theory) is
sacrosanct, but it is very well supported, and preventive approaches
(including abstinence, which even you must approve of) based on the
HIV causes AIDS theory actually work. That's truthlike enough for me.
<snip>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Walter Bushell
T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
> ID theory works are generally available everywhere.
Probably because there aren't any.
snex
> In article <apagano-795f23p7l0ks09pc6v2dbspvaj6380r...@4ax.com>,
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > ID theory works are generally available everywhere.
>
> Probably because there aren't any.
huh?
Steven J.
> On 16 Apr 2007 19:40:49 -0700, Bloopenblop...@juno.com wrote:
>
> >On Apr 16, 8:16 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> >> 3. Hume showed that it matters little how many empirical "facts' we
> >> amass. Such facts are completely impotent to justify the claim that
> >> our universal theories are true or even probably true. No one
> >> including the great atheist Bertrand Russell was ever able to show
> >> that Hume was mistaken.
>
> >Perhaps we need to take some things a priori without justification so
> >we that can justify anything at all.
>
> Regardless justification is a cheap imitation of what we really
> seek----objective truth.
>
you say "we really seek ... objective truth." You've never bothered
to offer any means of telling whether some proposition is objective
truth or not; you are content to deny that evidence offers any reason
to conclude that an idea is objectively true. Indeed, unless I've
forgotten or missed an important post, you've never explicitly stated
that any of your own beliefs are "objective truth."
So how does one go about seeking objective truth, and distinguishing
it from objective falsehood? You rule out evidence, and below you
denounce subjectivism (although I suspect that you and I would have
different ideas about what constitutes subjectivism.
Complaining that science has gone the wrong way, focusing on evidence
rather than truth, is not helpful unless you have some better way of
getting at the truth than seeing what the evidence supports. I have,
as I have complained before, a sneaking suspicion that "objective
truth" to you means "any arbitrary set of assertions that I feel good
about accepting, and evidence be damned." This is, oddly, most
people's notion of pure subjectivism.
>
> In axiomatiized mathematical systems a set of axioms are introduced "a
> priori". Every other statement is derived via some logical rules and
> as such cannot go beyond the truths already contained within the
> axioms themselves. And Godel proved that such systems cannot generale
> all of the truths. How then would we justify additional truths
> dreamed up by some mathematician?
>
As I understand it, one seeks some larger, more inclusive system with
a broader set of axioms.
>
> If truth is the goal in science why do we need justifations?
> Justification can't tell us anything about the truth value of some
> statement or even about its probability of truth.
>
What *can* tell us about the truth value of some statement, or at
least the probability that it is true? In your opinion, I mean. Out
here in the real world, people routinely risk their own and others'
lives, fortunes, and sacred honor on the assumption that justification
is a pretty good guide to how likely something is to be true.
>
> >Yet, I still think there is a
> >difference in reasonableness between accepting the validity of
> >induction a priori,
>
> This is one place where "a priorism" won't help. Induction is
> indisputably logically invalid. In valid deductive arguments the
> conclusion cannot contain anything not already contained within the
> premises and truth is transmitted from premises to conclusion. In
> so-called inductive arguments the conclusion does go beyond the
> premises. There is no logical connection between the truth value of
> the conclusion and the premises.
>
Validity isn't all it's cracked up to be. Deductive arguments don't
give you more confidence in the truth of their conclusions than you
have in their several premises, and how do you propose to go about
establishing the truth of those premises? That's not a rhetorical
question; I think it deserves an answer from you. Of course, based
on your past behavior, you're not interested in establishing the truth
of premises or conclusions; you're interested in showing that it
doesn't matter that you have no evidence for your creationist views
and abundant evidence against them, by denying the very relevance of
evidence.
>
> > and accepting the existence of the Flying
> >Spaghetti Monster a priori.
>
> I doubt there is a qualitative difference between assuming the
> existence of a "flying spaghetti monster" and assuming that a dinosaur
> forearm transformed into an avian wing. Neither have been observed.
> Nevertheless admitting something for consideration without any
> justification whatsoever is never a problem so long as it is
> provisional and genuine efforts are made to test and remove the claim
> if found false.
>
Tony, the transformation of a dinosaur forearm into an avian wing is
not "assumed." Indeed, throughout most of the 20th century, the idea
that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs was rejected or ignored by
most evolutionists; it was accepted gradually in the last thirty or so
years as fossil and other evidence (e.g. feathered dinosaur fossils)
turned up, and as new methods of cladistic systematics were brought to
bear. Of course, the fact that the earliest undoubted bird
(_Archaeopteryx_) has a wing whose bones are unmistakeably just
elongated versions of a typical theropod forelimb bones helped a lot.
All manner of things that have not been directly observed are inferred
from evidence: atoms and magnetic fields come to mind.
>
> >I think this is the sort of thing that led
> >the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey to say, "The truth is that which
> >works."
>
> This is subjectivism not a genuine interest in the objective truth.
>
Are you asserting that it is impossible to tell, objectively, what
works in science?
>
> >> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
> >> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
> >> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
>
> >Cite please?
>
> Please see: "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin". I'm referring to
> the Dover Publication's edition first pulished in 1958. See
> especially p42.
>
Darwin noted that he was reading Malthus for pleasure, and noted the
argument that any species can breed at a rate that will outstrip any
possible growth in its food supply, so that only some offspring can
survive. Darwin's theory is not based on Malthus's economic theory,
but upon the underlying biological facts that Malthus invoked to
support his own theory. Note that it is not relevant, to the question
of whether these facts support Darwin's idea of natural selection,
whether they support Malthus's theory that the poor will never
restrain their "untrammeled copulation" no matter what improvements
are made in their wages or sustenance.
>
> Darwin never cited Malthus's work in "Origin of Species" (or as near
> as I can tell Malthus); however, Chapter III, "Struggle for Existence"
> is based upon it.
>
Note quite; again, Darwin cites the same facts that Malthus cites,
albeit in support of somewhat different theories.
>
> >> > religion further asserts that people who deny these
> >> >assertions will be punished.
>
> >> It is becoming increasingly clear that snex makes things up as he
> >> goes along. Please produce a single line from a single christian
> >> creed which asserts this.
>
> >Try John 3:18.
>
> This is balanced by John 3:16-17. Furthermore John 3:19-21 makes
> clear that those condemned will be condemned by their own works not
> for some mere conscious disbelief.
>
> No christian creed (or any other relgious creed for that matter)
> asserts eternal punishment for the mere disbelief in Genesis 1-3 as
> actual history.
>
I did not see any explicit claim in snex's post that any religion
promises punishment (eternal or otherwise) for disbelieving that
religion's creation myths; there was a more general claim that every
religion claims that those who disbelieve certain of the religion's
claims will be punished in some way. I think he is wrong about this
claim, but I think he overgeneralizes from conservative Christianity
to all forms of all religions.
>
> >> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> >> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> >> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>
> >> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> >> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> >> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> >> orthodoxy is through peer review. I suspect the fear of being
> >> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> >> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
>
> >Give an example.
>
> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
>
As others have noted, he nonetheless managed to publish in peer-
reviewed journals. Tony, a belief is not "sacrosanct" merely because
science does not abandon it on your say-so.
>
> >Also, creationists, though they have no peer-reviewed
> >support,
>
> If peer reviewers had some special insight into all of the objective
> truth unavailable to the rest of us one might consider Creationist
> lack of peer review support to be significant. As it is peer review
> has served no other purpose than to effectively maintain whatever pet
> theories are reigning at the time.
>
Again, your own rabid subjectivism is placed on display, and called
(one might almost call this behavior of yours "dishonesty") "objective
truth."
>
> > have had no trouble disseminating their views through other
> >media. I doubt that many biologists are unfamiliar with creationism,
> >and many are quite familiar with it.
>
> I doubt very seriously that they are familiar with creationism since
> those works in print are only rarely available at public or collegiate
> libraries. ID theory works are generally available everywhere.
>
All those creationist websites must not be doing much to spread the
word. I suspect, by the way, that most large libraries do have copies
of young-earth creationist works, although my local library seems to
have lost its copy of Morris's _Creation Science_.
>
> The misrepresentations of ID theory, for example, by secularists are
> significant which means that either you are mistaken or these same
> people are disingenuous.
>
The only significant misrepresentation of ID "theory" is the
representation that IDers have a theory.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
Walter Bushell
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
There being no theory of ID they can be no works on it.
snex
> In article <1177040676.860216.144...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 19, 10:34 pm, Walter Bushell <p...@oanix.com> wrote:
> > > In article <apagano-795f23p7l0ks09pc6v2dbspvaj6380r...@4ax.com>,
> > > T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
> > > > ID theory works are generally available everywhere.
>
> > > Probably because there aren't any.
>
> > huh?
>
> There being no theory of ID they can be no works on it.
but the post you are responding to says that there are such works and
are generally available everywhere.
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
>>
> 1. Christian doctrine makes assertions about only one material
> world---ours. Any premises about a non material realm is irrelevent
> to the origins of our natural world.
?? this would stand 2000 years of christian theology on its head.
genesis (i KNOW tony hasn't READ the bible so i've given the
citation) says IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH
that's a claim about a non material realm interacting with the natural
world
>
> 2. Christian doctrine is underpinned (in part) by the premise that
> it is an Omniscient Being with access to the absolute truth Who is
> the one providing the assertions about His natural world. Snex may
> dispute the underpinning; however, there is nothing illogical about
> such a chain of reasoning.
sure there is. how do we know about the existence of an omniscient
being?
> >
> 4. Darwin underpinned his theory of natural selection upon Malthus's
> theory (not an empirical fact) and it has been known for at least half
> a century that Malthus's theory is flat wrong as a universal claim.
if this is true, it' irrelevant. darwin and his successors...including
all of todays scientists...have amassed more than enough evidence to
demonstrate evolution is a fact.
> > >
> >the reasons to accept religous assertions
> >are fear, ignorance, and tradition.
>
> 1. Here snex is apparently under impression that any increases in our
> knowledge of the material world attributable to his dogma scientism is
> decreasing our infinite ignorance.
>
> 2. The christian's faith is in an omniscient Being with access to all
> of the absolute truth while snex's faith in scientism will never
> extinguish his infinite ignorance.
except, of course, tony hasn't proven the existence of a god. his god
is illogical and can easily be shown to be false. tony's weird mixture
of american fundamentalist protestantism and roman catholicism is
accepted by neither tradition.
> >
>
> >science makes assertions about the natural world (and only the natural
> >world that we can readily observe) that are based on both logic and
> >empirical facts.
>
> 1. Only an atheist with an undying and zealous faith in scientism
> could make such a claim with a straight face.
?? can tony show where this is false?
>
> 2. The history of science is lttered with failure.
which does NOT say that logic wasn't used in the formation of false
theories. he's arguing against himself
In fact in most
> instances all of the sacrosant theories throughout history have
> fallen. The successes of scientism have been fleeting at best.
> Darwinism and Big Bangism will also fall.
since the big bang is gaining MORE evidence, such an assertion is
whistling past the cemetary. and since the percentage of scientists
who accept evolution is almost 100%, tony's assertion is merely tony
watching himself write...
>
> 3. The hsitory of science, logic and the philosophy of science has
> shown that the generation of new theories has almost nothing to do
> with logic
?? another meaningless assertion. einstein's theory of relativity, for
example, was developed after he asked himself what would happen if he
could move fast enough to watch a ray of light move. from that he used
mathematical logic to develop his theory.
so tony is plainly wrong.
. Non trivial new theories are not nor have they ever been
> simple logical deductions from our background knowledge. They have
> been leaps of insight that go beyond our background knowledge. It is
> only AFTER the new theory has been generated can logic be employed to
> help determine the empirical consequences.
?? what in the world does THIS mean? a theory HAS to have a logical
structure related to the issues it wishes to resolve. otherwise it is,
by definition, a non sequitur.
IOW tony hasn't a clue about how science is done. wrapped up in his
pantheism he's unable to fathom the role logic has played in western
civilization for 2400 years...
>
>
> > there is no forcefully imposed penalty for failing to
> >believe in the assertions of science. the reasons to accept scientific
> >assertions are logic, evidence, and intellectual honesty.
>
> This is laughable. Everyone who depends on the secular scientific
> community for their livelihood and who disputes the sacrosanct
> theories is crushed. The easiest way to destroy someone who bucks the
> orthodoxy is through peer review.
and yet this is done all the time. when scientists discovered 'dark
energy' about 15 years ago they bucked the tide. it was...and is...a
revolutionary concept totally unexpected. yet today no virtually no
scientist disagrees with it.
I suspect the fear of being
> squeezed out of the ability to publish has stifled many new ideas that
> contradict the current sacrosanct theories consistent with atheism.
tony hasn't proven his case, whereas i just cited an example showing
he's wrong. in addition, science is SECULAR, not atheistic...a big
difference
> >
> >these two views are fundamentally at odds with each other. you cannot
> >accept both without being inconsistent.
>
> Again utter nonsense. Creationists for the last 40 years have only
> had to dispense with a few secular theories which already have their
> share of empirical problems.
meaningless...tony makes assertions easily refuted...
wf3h
T Pagano wrote:
> On 16 Apr 2007 19:40:49 -0700, Bloopen...@juno.com wrote:
> >
>
> > and accepting the existence of the Flying
> >Spaghetti Monster a priori.
>
> I doubt there is a qualitative difference between assuming the
> existence of a "flying spaghetti monster" and assuming that a dinosaur
> forearm transformed into an avian wing. Neither have been observed.
?? uh..tony...we've never seen a star form, either, yet they exist.
it's the job of science to explain this.
and it does. we don't HAVE to see a star form...or a dinosaur turn
into a bird...to know that there are natural processes which can do
this. we can test evolution in the lab, just as we can test nuclear
fusion. we can test laws of nature
but religion? when has it EVER been right in explaining the natural
world? tony keeps saying it HAS but his entire life is devoted to
saying science is ALWAYS wrong and religion is right...even when he
can't cite a single example
>
> >I think this is the sort of thing that led
> >the pragmatic philosopher John Dewey to say, "The truth is that which
> >works."
>
> This is subjectivism not a genuine interest in the objective truth.
to paraphrase herod 'what is objective truth'?
>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >Give an example.
>
> Dr Peter Duesberg, a National Academy of Sciences member was
> ostracized and isolated for disputing the truthlikeness of the
> sacrosanct HIV-causes-AIDS theory.
?? and where is duesberg today? i remember this controversy from 20
years ago. duesberg argued that the AIDS virus didn't cause the
disease, but demonstrated no evidence to back it up. and he still
hasn't. scientists are not bound to consider ideas that have no proof
or evidence.
as a counter example, we can look at the discovery of dark energy.
this is a revolutionary idea, totally unexpected, and forced
scientists to go back and revise features of the big bang. yet it is
accepted today as standard physics.
so tony's ONLY citation is for an idea that, even in its DAY had no
evidence and TODAY has no evidence. is tony saying that EVERY idea
that has NO evidence is science?
>
>
> >Also, creationists, though they have no peer-reviewed
> >support,
>
> If peer reviewers had some special insight into all of the objective
> truth unavailable to the rest of us one might consider Creationist
> lack of peer review support to be significant. As it is peer review
> has served no other purpose than to effectively maintain whatever pet
> theories are reigning at the time.
tell it to saul perlmutter and wendy freedman who did the work on dark
energy. they'd disagree.
>
> The misrepresentations of ID theory, for example, by secularists are
> significant which means that either you are mistaken or these same
> people are disingenuous.
>
since i have, and tony hasn't, talked to mike behe (i met him on the
campus of my graduate alma mater, lehigh university), we can safely
say that tony's assertions are generally bunk....
Walter Bushell
snex <sn...@comcast.net> wrote:
If you include Bibles and other works in the religion section, yes.
T Pagano
I never said that he was summarily drummed out. I simply noted that
his daring to buck the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-AIDS
caused him considerable difficulty. The fact that he was a National
Academy of Sciences member is probably the only thing that saved him.
Had some post doc dared to do the same thing his career in his field
would have been destroyed.
This example demonstrates that the secular claim that theories are
always provisional is nonsense whenever a theory has been elevated to
the level of secular dogma.
Regards,
T Pagano
snex
it caused him difficulty because he presented no evidence. if HIV
actually *didnt* cause AIDS, and something else did, and some post doc
showed *evidence* for this, he would win the nobel prize. what pagano
cant seem to understand is that science all comes down to evidence,
not how deeply embedded a theory is.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Bobby Bryant
T Pagano <not....@address.net> writes:
> ... secular dogma of HIV-causes-AIDS ...
The evil atheists have come up with another anti-religious theory, eh?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
snex
> In article <apagano-sspi23lq2ub3dgipmur7kqfceda0emk...@4ax.com>,
> T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> writes:
>
> > ... secular dogma of HIV-causes-AIDS ...
>
> The evil atheists have come up with another anti-religious theory, eh?
if only they admitted it was a punishment from god for buggery, then
we could... well, i dunno. what exactly *does* pagano think calling it
supernatural will do? does he think treatment would improve if
hospitals institute exorcism departments? as far as i know, nobody
stops exorcists from doing their thing anyway, and they havent done
shit.
i wonder if pagano goes to the naturalistic doctor when he gets sick,
or if he calls up his priest.
CreateThis
wrote:
>... the sacrosanct and secular dogma of HIV-causes-AIDS
Very good. Admitting you're a raving religious nutcase is the first
step toward... being an acknowledged raving religious nutcase.
CT