Originally posted by dottewellI'd like a stab at that, if you don't mind.
Whodey, if you or a loved one contracted a disease which would be fatal if untreated - but which could be cured if treated - would you not put your faith in science?
Is there not some intellectual dishonesty here? Why not just accept that you use and benefit from the fruits of scientific discovery and see science's progress as a tribute to both man's en ...[text shortened]... claim our current understanding is "perfect". So there's no need to keep making the point.
Despite the fact that whodey has already posted a declarative stance in affirmation of science, and despite my similar statements, you insist on making those who raise the faith/science question out to be anti-science. Why? There is certainly no history on either of our parts indicative of an anti-science bias, yet you persist.
if you or a loved one contracted a disease which would be fatal if untreated - but which could be cured if treated - would you not put your faith in science?
Absolutely not. My oldest boy had open-heart surgery within a few days of being born. As we sat in the hospital waiting for the first procedure to be completed, a hospice volunteer was attempting to calm our fears by informing us (for what seemed to be the hundredth time) about how this hospital and this team of doctors was the best in the whole country for neo-natal heart surgery.
I thought, what if we had the second best? The worst? The fact is I know that God gives life and God takes it away, regardless of our best or worse efforts, and no amount of worry on my part--- nor faith, for that matter--- was going to make that little guy live. His life or death was up to God.
It is our lot to do the best that we can in light of all that we know, trusting God with our efforts.
Ironically, in the process of that ordeal, we found out that just a few years previously, no anesthetics were used on infants during surgeries, as it was believed they were unnecessary. That further convinced me to place my trust in perfect knowledge for all things.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThere is no empirical evidence at all for the existence of any deity/supernatural entities whatsoever. In fact the very existence of beings with the kind of abilities you (religion in general not necessarily you personally) attribute to a god make a mockery of the very idea of science. Let me explain.
Note that I did not write 'religion-ology,' but, rather, 'theology,' or, the study of God.
A certain Greek philosopher came up with hypothetical creatures called Cartesian devils. They had the ability to create any illusion/sensation we are capable of experiencing. If such creatures existed then anything in the world around us, in fact everything in the world around us could be fabrications of these creatures (the matrix or star trek holosuite, would be modern day examples). Thus he concluded that the only thing you could be sure of is the fact of your own existence, that there is something there to experience these sensations, 'I think therefore I am'. Basically the only thing you can know for certain is that you yourself exist. You can't prove ANYTHING else because it could be an illusion. This of course prove problematic for society, you can't for example have people murdering someone and then defending themselves by saying that you can't prove that the victim actually exists, although their is always the danger that the prosecution could argue that the defendant doesn't exist either and thus it doesn't matter weather you lock them up or not. Anyway having postulated the potential existence of these Cartesian devils you land up being backed up into a philosophical corner. The question is how do you get out of it. There are two basic options;
One: although we can't prove it you simply assume that these devils don't exist and that the world is real.
Two: they do exist but there is a real world and they just manipulate it (and not very often/visibly) or that they create an illusion of a real world that remains mutually consistent atleast most of the time (or some variant on this)
If one applies. Then there is no god, no spirits, and no supernatural. There is only the physical world we see around us which we conduct experiments on/observe and have determined that it appears to run on a set of rules which govern what happens. This is the 'rationalist' view.
If two applies. Then anything could happen, magic applies rather than physics, or perhaps physics happens most of the time but can be overridden by magic. However it works science in this situation can only ever provide an incomplete view of the world (still useful, this computer couldn't be designed without it) and you get situations where you have to give up and say, it happened by magic (supernatural intervention, god did it whatever).
The two positions are a matter of faith. You believe there is a real world out there that follows a set of rules that can be discovered, or you don't.
However, there is no evidence of magic or god or the supernatural, and the world does appear to run on discoverable rules. And as stated above the various branches of science effect our lives every day, from the vaccines you had as a child to protect you from illness, to the mobile phone, car, computer, satellite, soap.... the list is nearly endless.
The two are incompatible, one makes some people feel better (I don't deny some people get comfort from there religion, although I would suggest that they could get the same comfort from someplace else, (whole different discussion)), the other is unbelievably useful and without which we certainly couldn't support the present world population and wont survive as a species. If we had to ditch one I know which I would pick. However we don't have to as humans are not Vulcan’s and are perfectly capable of believing in two mutually contradictory ideas with no trouble what so ever.
So in the end, Theology is not, and can never be a science. There is no evidence that such a being exists and if they’re ever were proof, it would destroy the very foundation of science.
I am however human and thus am contradictory. So long live the Easter bunny, Santa clause and the rest. 😉
And try not to be so picky about the spelling. It's a pain running it through the spellchecker every time, remember, in the time of Shakespeare no one had fixed spelling and he got on just fine 😛
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Understanding has only progressed so far, thus limited.
There is a difference between saying science "does not know" something and saying science "cannot know" something. One does not logically follow the other.
Science can only respond to the general revelation. And, as stated, that response is limited by our sight.
Nonsense. Science explains things we can't see (in any sense of the word) quite often.
There was no contradiction in the statement. We have found out something that science hitherto did not know. As such, those who said prior to this discovery that science 'is all/knows all' were wrong.
Any scientist who would make such a claim as "science knows all" isn't worth their pay grade. I personally feel you would be hard pressed to actually find a quote which made that statement.
Yet again I'll point out that we now know of Pluto's additional moons because of science itself. What was not known is now known.
Interpretation, of course. Translation? You'll need to be clearer on this one prior to me shouting, "horse excrement."
Please don't be insulting. You have personally had arguments with people on these boards concerning the correctness and interpretation of language translations of the OT.
-JC