@sonship saidYep. The scientific method has been successful because it has a mechanism for correcting human biases.
@BigDoggProblemSure, because humans have egos and hate to admit that they are wrong.
When you've given your life to a certain world-view, you may rather die then give it up.
And though we all would fancy ourselves as purely objective, worldview can influence the way we interpret evidence.
Same evidence but different interpretations because of differing a prior worldview.
Everyone can be questioned, no matter how esteemed they are in the field.
@bigdoggproblem saidReally, what about the bias about only looking at the material world for answers?
Yep. The scientific method has been successful because it has a mechanism for correcting human biases.
Everyone can be questioned, no matter how esteemed they are in the field.
@kellyjay saidThat's what science is for.
Really, what about the bias about only looking at the material world for answers?
It's not for questions like "what is the meaning of life?"
Those are for religion, or philosophy.
This "bias" is no more problematic than the bias of preferring a round peg for a round hole.
@bigdoggproblem saidSuggesting only in science are the answers is nothing but an accretion that is not scientific itself. The bias is huge and apparently many are blind to it.
That's what science is for.
It's not for questions like "what is the meaning of life?"
Those are for religion, or philosophy.
This "bias" is no more problematic than the bias of preferring a round peg for a round hole.
-Removed-We are very clear to who we speak too and know who will probably listen. The bible says this:
PS 10:17 "But you will hear the request of the meek, O Jehovah.
You will make their hearts firm and pay close attention to them."
First it would be ones like this who may be asking Jehovah for help and understanding. Many are searching for the true knowledge of Jehovah and what is in his word.
I also want the ones here who say there is no God who is the creator of all we see, including those who scoff of his name this. But as those scriptures explain is that he only lets ones who are sincerely are asking him for help and to truly know he is real before Jehovah will answer and let them see him. For those who have no interest in Jehovah, they will continue going thru life without Jehovah allowing them to see him or understand the bible. Sorry y'all....
PS 10: 1-18:
10 Why, O Jehovah, do you stand at a distance?
Why do you hide yourself in times of distress?
2 The wicked one arrogantly pursues the helpless one,
But he will be caught in the schemes he devises.
3 For the wicked one boasts about his selfish desires
And blesses the greedy one;
He disrespects Jehovah.
4 In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation;
All his thoughts are: “There is no God.”
5 His ways keep prospering,
But your judgments are beyond his understanding;
He scoffs at all his adversaries.
6 He says in his heart: “I will never be shaken;*
For generation after generation
I will never see calamity.”
7 His mouth is full of curses, lies, and threats;
Under his tongue are trouble and injury.
8 He waits in ambush near the settlements;
From his hiding place he kills an innocent one.
"Such tiny little humans with tiny little thoughts...."
2 edits
I would like to repost that Psalm 10 in the Recovery Version, just for fun.
Why, O Jehovah, do you stand far off?
Why do You hide Yourself in times of distress? (v.1)
As a young Christian I really got a lot out of reading the Psalms. For one I could totally identify with some things. Especially getting into difficulty because of my own dumb fault. And then wondering why God seemed so far off.
I remember the many places in the Psalms where the writer is crying out that his own dumb fault has landed him in trouble - and WHERE or WHERE is God now ??
2 edits
"Arrogantly the wicked hotly pursue the poor -
May they be caught in the plots that they devise?" (v.2)
As a brand new Christian reading Psalms, I thought "Yea ! Get em God !!"
Of course I didn't realize that sometimes "them" was me.
With some time I realized that I could be on the dealing side of doing somebody poor dirt just as much as being a victim.
I began to respect God's equity and mercy shown in the Psalms.
3 edits
"Not ME but the OTHER guy. " This may be among the first things God has to begin to break down in a new believer.
Go get the OTHER guy, God. Me? I'm ok. I can do no wrong. Or I need a lot of allowance. Its the OTHER GUY you need to fix Lord.
"For the wicked man boasts of the desire of his soul,
And the rapacious man curses, even despises Jehovah." (v.3)
My early thought was " Yea, but not ME. The other fellow over there. God you really need to fix him."
God is patient. Soon you realize that you are often on the offending side and others are your victims. Perish the thought! Me, arrogant against God ? Oh no!
1 edit
Psalm 10 cont.
"The wicked man, according to the haughtiness of his countenance, Says, He will not require it;
All his thoughts are this: There is no God!" (v.4)
No I am not saying that I slip into atheism sometimes. I mean practically, I thought "God won't require the right thing from me. It all happened too fast. Surely it was all so minuscule and overlooked."
Practically speaking, my rationale reasoned "There is no God".
Not Athiesm, but "This is not important to God."
But when the OTHER guy sins, the OTHER gal, then it matters to God.
IE. What's a matter with You God? Fix the world. Just don't start with me. Start with him. Put me at the back of the line if in the list at all."
I kept reading the Bible. And light began to grow within. "I need ... salvation. I, Lord Jehovah, You need to start HERE with me."
You skeptics who complain that God must be incompetent or not there. And WHY does He allow evil to run wild?
But would you like God to START fixing it all with you?
I think we all want God to do something about wickedness. But we want Him not to start with "your's truly."
Jesus starts with ME. That's why it is hard for some to come to Jesus. You are at the front of the line and not the end.
@bigdoggproblem saidWell okay, because I took what you said that was what science is for, was to exclude truth by limiting it to science. Making a claim that science handles some truth and only things like religion, and philosophy handle others. You know as if only science can see to put the round peg into the round hole because it is all the only thing that can handle that.
Don't know of anyone here who is suggesting that...
@kellyjay saidI want to be very careful here. Sometimes we cannot get all the way to the "truth" of the matter; sometimes we must be content with knowing a bit more than we used to know.
Well okay, because I took what you said that was what science is for, was to exclude truth by limiting it to science. Making a claim that science handles some truth and only things like religion, and philosophy handle others. You know as if only science can see to put the round peg into the round hole because it is all the only thing that can handle that.
For questions of "why does the physical world behave the way it does?" - I think science is the best tool we have for answering such questions.
Even for questions of "why do human beings behave the way they do?" - science may be an appropriate method for answering such questions, in that it encourages rigorous taking of data, accurate interpretation of that data, and so on ... despite not giving any "hard truths". Humans are complicated animals [at least, we are complicated to ourselves], so we may have to be content with results like "typical human behavior in this case is to X" - realizing that not all humans will do the predicted thing.
Now, here's where things get really fun. Philosophy can be exercised with a "scientific" approach - i.e., careful argumentation and logic can be employed, and that opened up to appropriate skepticism by peers in the field. I suppose the term "science" has more than one meaning.
When I use the term in a forum like this one, I tend to mean the science of physics. In threads like this one, I feel justified in doing so; this thread is about the origin of DNA, and the (im)possibility of Evolution by Natural Selection in that origin.
But, no matter which meaning of the term "science" is used, I believe that any "science", as practiced by humans, will never have access to the full truth of the matter. We are limited; we are small, and have short lifespans.
I suppose that is why I have a built-in allergy to dogmatism. We've learned so much about physics, but, the more we learn, the more we realize how much we do not know.
