Originally posted by RJHinds
But it is a [b]Spirituality Starter.[/b]

Got it.

Originally posted by JS357
As opposed to rebutting any particular point, you state a generality without citing any particular errors. But yes, science always has, and always will, have errors. If you demand science be error free before accepting any of its findings, you don't understand science.

One of the problems with science isn't science, but people who will from
time to time take some theory, hypothesis, whatever and turn it into a
belief system akin to religion. The scary thing about this is no matter what
can be shown as error or unlikely all it takes is some "reason" or the mere
hope for a "reason" to keep the belief alive. This is quite different than a
religion's text which is fixed.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
One of the problems with science isn't science, but people who will from
time to time take some theory, hypothesis, whatever and turn it into a
belief system akin to religion. The scary thing about this is no matter what
can be shown as error or unlikely all it takes is some "reason" or the mere
hope for a "reason" to keep the belief alive. This is quite different than a
religion's text which is fixed.
Kelly

Yes.

"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists {and I add, some nontheists} inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like.”
- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Their belief system is not science. The domain of science is methodological naturalism, that is, the commitment to seek answers only within the natural world regardless of whether there are any other answers. Undetectable spooks and goblins may be behind it all, but believing that there are spooks and goblins, or believing that there are not spooks and goblins, is not the domain of science. (Replace spooks and goblins by the supernatural being of your choice.) Maxwell's demon may be real, all we can study is his behavior.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes.

"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists {and I add, some nontheists} inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like.”
- Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Their belief system is not science. Methodological naturalism, that is, th ...[text shortened]... pernatural being of your choice.) Maxwell's demon may be real, all we can study is his behavior.

You don't even have to get to spooks and goblins just not buying into the
natural causes some believe in is enough to have you belittled to no end.
On top of that even if you don't bring up spooks and goblins they will be
assigned to you anyway, it is easier to dismiss someone if that is what you
want to do, if they can be tagged with those then nothing they say has to
be looked at or entertained as a real complaint.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
One of the problems with science isn't science, but people who will from
time to time take some theory, hypothesis, whatever and turn it into a
belief system akin to religion. The scary thing about this is no matter what
can be shown as error or unlikely all it takes is some "reason" or the mere
hope for a "reason" to keep the belief alive.

But oddly enough, this only seems to happen with hypotheses that conflict with your religion.

This is quite different than a religion's text which is fixed.
Kelly
No religion has a fixed text.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You don't even have to get to spooks and goblins just not buying into the
natural causes some believe in is enough to have you belittled to no end.
On top of that even if you don't bring up spooks and goblins they will be
assigned to you anyway, it is easier to dismiss someone if that is what you
want to do, if they can be tagged with those then nothing they say has to
be looked at or entertained as a real complaint.
Kelly

Yes it is easy to be dismissive {edit: of things we happen to disbelieve}, isn't it?

Edit further: But "believe in natural causes" misses my point: methodological naturalism isn't "belief in natural causes."

Originally posted by twhitehead
But oddly enough, this only seems to happen with hypotheses that conflict with your religion.

[b]This is quite different than a religion's text which is fixed.
Kelly
No religion has a fixed text.[/b]

He means that the words in the orignal language of the Holy scriptures are fixed. The translations and interpretations may change, but not the words in the orginal language.

Originally posted by JS357
Yes it is easy to be dismissive {edit: of things we happen to disbelieve}, isn't it?

Edit further: But "believe in natural causes" misses my point: methodological naturalism isn't "belief in natural causes."

Yes it is easy to be dismissive to things we disbelieve in.
I believe we all share that trait, if I was coming off as suggesting those I
disagree with only hold it, I did not mean to.

My point again is that if we allow anything other than the data to speak to
us we are danger of assumptions that will hide things from us. We will
accept things we should not or reject things we shouldn't. I try to but am
not always successful to listen to those that disagree with me, because they
will tell me things that those that agree with me will not. It doesn't mean
I have to accept what they say, but it should be given weight nonetheless.

If you read many of the discussions on the science board, just look how
fast the insults come. It is not about science, it isn't about real discussions,
it is about forming lines and protecting one's side of the debate when in
science there should not be sides accept to find the truth.

So people will not look at what I have to say simply because I believe in
God. I get painted as pushing my faith when I strive to never bring my
faith into any discussion on science. My faith cannot be proven or disproven
by science, so what would the point be to use it? It may lead me down
a path of questions that someone without my faith wouldn't go, but so
what questions are what science is supposed to be about, and we have not
even brought the supernatural into the world of science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes it is easy to be dismissive to things we disbelieve in.
I believe we all share that trait, if I was coming off as suggesting those I
disagree with only hold it, I did not mean to.

My point again is that if we allow anything other than the data to speak to
us we are danger of assumptions that will hide things from us. We will
accept things we shou ...[text shortened]... ed to be about, and we have not
even brought the supernatural into the world of science.
Kelly

"If you read many of the discussions on the science board, just look how
fast the insults come. It is not about science, it isn't about real discussions,
it is about forming lines and protecting one's side of the debate when in
science there should not be sides accept to find the truth. "

All too true. I've seen bruised egos in science all my working life. Putting reputations and careers at stake will do that. The same carries over to these forums where very little is actually at stake.

Edit: Except here on spirituality, some think everything is at stake.

Originally posted by JS357
"If you read many of the discussions on the science board, just look how
fast the insults come. It is not about science, it isn't about real discussions,
it is about forming lines and protecting one's side of the debate when in
science there should not be sides accept to find the truth. "

All too true. I've seen bruised egos in science all my working lif ...[text shortened]... e is actually at stake.

Edit: Except here on spirituality, some think everything is at stake.

In my opinion I would have thought putting theories under the fire should be
the thing to do! Looking for questions to validate or dismiss should be the
goal, instead questions are not valid simply because of who asks them, or as
bad accepting something as valid simply because of who states it. Neither of
those stances have anything to do with science.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
In my opinion I would have thought putting theories under the fire should be
the thing to do! Looking for questions to validate or dismiss should be the
goal, instead questions are not valid simply because of who asks them, or as
bad accepting something as valid simply because of who states it. Neither of
those stances have anything to do with science.
Kelly

It might be useful to discuss an example. Because I put this thread on spirituality, I want to either end it, or keep it productively on the title subject. So, if there is a challenge to an accepted theory, I think the challenger should begin with what he thinks is wrong with the theory and why he thinks that. For example, if he says biology is wrong about speciation because the Bible says god created all the species directly, that would be a science stopper (and if RJ is correct, a spirituality starter🙂).

Originally posted by RJHinds
He means that the words in the orignal language of the Holy scriptures are fixed. The translations and interpretations may change, but not the words in the orginal language.

The so called 'Holy scriptures' are a collection of books - which obviously means the collection changed over time. Further, the religion involves both interpretation of those scriptures (which is as changeable as the weather) and even disagreement about what to include in the scriptures, and even what translations of the scriptures to use etc. In addition to that the vast majority of denominations have a significant body of writing that is not part of the scriptures - but that is core to that particular denomination. Kellys pretence at a solid unchanging underpinning to religion is belied by the enormous variety of denominations within christianity and the enormous change it has undergone over time. I suspect he doesn't realize just how much of what he believes does not actually come from the writing in the Bible but rather from more modern thinkers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
He means that the words in the orignal language of the Holy scriptures are fixed. The translations and interpretations may change, but not the words in the orginal language.

Well that is true of all written texts. The words of Newton's original Principia Mathematica are fixed and have not changed. Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics are literally set in stone.

--- Penguin

Originally posted by JS357
It might be useful to discuss an example. Because I put this thread on spirituality, I want to either end it, or keep it productively on the title subject. So, if there is a challenge to an accepted theory, I think the challenger should begin with what he thinks is wrong with the theory and why he thinks that. For example, if he says biology is wrong about spe ...[text shortened]... cies directly, that would be a science stopper (and if RJ is correct, a spirituality starter🙂).

I recall a discussion about the forming of the eye through evolution quite
a while ago. From personal experience I brought up the issues that I saw in
the beliefs about the eyes formation by evolution.

My concerns were just brushed off not because of the things I brought up
so much, but because I am a creationist. When many discussions about
science here brought up there is an automatic attack on people. This stops
science in my opinion, it is then like I said earlier akin to protecting a
religious belief.

Issues I have with the formation of the eye are several none of which have
to do with God. I find it amazing with what people know about PC and all
the various pieces of equipment that can function with them. That they
can think that a new device like a "light sensitive" spot can just occur on a
cell and be meaningful to the life form they believe that gets one.

You cannot just stick a new piece of equipment on a PC so it automatically
becomes a useful part of the system, without the proper code that sends
receives useful information. What is more likely it could cause a system
break down, or do nothing at all but draw down energy depending how it
was connected.

After that it get more complex yet seemly all the odds are just accepted as
do able, because well that is what evolution does, over come impossible
odds.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
The so called 'Holy scriptures' are a collection of books - which obviously means the collection changed over time. Further, the religion involves both interpretation of those scriptures (which is as changeable as the weather) and even disagreement about what to include in the scriptures, and even what translations of the scriptures to use etc. In additio ...[text shortened]... ieves does not actually come from the writing in the Bible but rather from more modern thinkers.

“You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.

(Acts 7:51 NKJV)

You remind me of a stiff-necked person with his head straight up his ass.