@bigdoggproblem saidDo you think science explains the material world? Its beginning would be excellent, has science shown you that? We agree we can look at what is going on in great detail, but that doesn't explain why only what is going on. We can see bodies in motion concerning planets and so on, that is pretty much it. The why they are where they are, doing what they are doing is beyond us if you believe Newton.
Yes, experience, but also reasoning. Experience without reasoning is no help at all.
Good science relies heavily on BOTH.
As to your last point, I could not disagree more. I find the Scientific explanation of the material world day far more satisfying, comprehensive and useful than any religious-type explanation I have ever read.
Just as science is not well suited to answer philosophical questions, religion is not well suited to explain the physical world.
If there is a creator being ~ and in the absence of any credible "revelation" of things like its "will" or its supposed threats or promises ~ I think the laws of nature are the closest that humans can get to knowing its nature - through understanding how the universe works.
In other words, its "creation" is all we can know about a creator being.
The only group that can be described as investigating this, and expanding our knowledge of the creator being [if there is one], is scientists.
Meanwhile, philosophers and religionists and ideologues are engaged in humanity's navel-gazing.
@kellyjay saidTake the age of the Earth. One popular religious explanation is that of Bishop Ussher; he looked at the genealogies in the Bible, and, starting with 0 AD, traced the line of Jesus back to Adam, and came up with a starting year of 4004 BCE.
When you are comparing a scientific explanation to a religious one, what do you mean by that? What is the basis for this distinction? Where is it you think science and religion are at odds with the truth that one should be shunned for the other?
There are people in both realms siding with and against each other on many topics. Can you be specific?
Science's explanation of the age of the earth is that radiometric dating of the oldest rocks on the planet produces an age of approximately 4 billion years.
On this matter, I favor the scientific explanation.
For questions like, "what is my purpose in life?", I tend to find Buddhist explanations more helpful than the scientific ones.
There is naturally some overlap between science and religion, but I think much of the discord between them is because people are using them to answer the wrong questions. They are both tools, and like any tool, they are best used for the right jobs.
@kellyjay saidIf you think that Science is only about observing the motions of planets, then you haven't been paying attention. The computer you're typing on right now is a direct result of scientific research.
Do you think science explains the material world? Its beginning would be excellent, has science shown you that? We agree we can look at what is going on in great detail, but that doesn't explain why only what is going on. We can see bodies in motion concerning planets and so on, that is pretty much it. The why they are where they are, doing what they are doing is beyond us if you believe Newton.
Also, Newton was a long time ago, and we have learned more about the movements of planets since him. Only a defeatist stops with Newton and says, "it's beyond us".
1 edit
@bigdoggproblem saidDo you think there is a difference in truth found in science and what is found in religion? Wouldn't truth be the truth, regardless of what or how it is discovered and by whom? There isn't a 'science' truth, and a different set of truths only found in religion! If it isn't true, it isn't true regardless of who came up with it, or how it was discovered. No one has suggested we don't stop trying to understand anything.
If you think that Science is only about observing the motions of planets, then you haven't been paying attention. The computer you're typing on right now is a direct result of scientific research.
Also, Newton was a long time ago, and we have learned more about the movements of planets since him. Only a defeatist stops with Newton and says, "it's beyond us".
I spent ~20 years working in the technology world, I'm aware of what it takes for this computer to work.
2 edits
@bigdoggproblem saidNo one knows the age of the earth, you cannot use scripture to say how old it is because it isn't clear on the matter. I'm a young-earth creationist, but I cannot prove that using scripture to those who would only argue the point with only scripture! The text is to vague on the matter, God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning, then the days start being described! So is that creation of heavens and earth at that time during the first day or not, who knows?
Take the age of the Earth. One popular religious explanation is that of Bishop Ussher; he looked at the genealogies in the Bible, and, starting with 0 AD, traced the line of Jesus back to Adam, and came up with a starting year of 4004 BCE.
Science's explanation of the age of the earth is that radiometric dating of the oldest rocks on the planet produces an age of ap ...[text shortened]... the wrong questions. They are both tools, and like any tool, they are best used for the right jobs.
Examine something all of us can grasp without reaching for straws, we can look at life, and the information found in it so it develops properly. That DNA code was written by chance and mindless processes? We know minds can write instructions, have you witnessed a mindless process come up with anything remotely close to life? Did it take a great mind with the ability not only to the code of life but also set up the whole universe to support life here too? What is the best explanation for life as you look at the evidence?
If you run the numbers on what it would take to randomly hit a key-board to come up with your name, you'll see how difficult information is using random chance! Then think about complicated biological instructions we know exist in living systems. Does evidence or warm and fuzzy feelings tell you life could and would spring up without direction and purpose?
@kellyjay saidA fact is a fact, regardless of people's opinions. There can still be different "types" of truths, tho. Different types of facts.
Do you think there is a difference in truth found in science and what is found in religion? Wouldn't truth be the truth, regardless of what or how it is discovered and by whom? There isn't a 'science' truth, and a different set of truths only found in religion! If it isn't true, it isn't true regardless of who came up with it, or how it was discovered. No one has suggested w ...[text shortened]... ent ~20 years working in the technology world, I'm aware of what it takes for this computer to work.
For example, "Suspect's clothing fibers found at a crime scene" is a forensic fact; "2+2 = 4" is a mathematical fact, etc.
I am glad to hear you have not given up on humans trying to understand things. 🙂
It's also good to hear you're aware of the impact of science upon technology. Sorry to question your background; it's just that you were talking like science had stopped dead in its tracks hundreds of years ago.
@kellyjay saidIf you don't find Ussher's reasoning compelling, may I ask, why are you a young-earth creationist? What evidence do you find compelling for your viewpoint?
No one knows the age of the earth, you cannot use scripture to say how old it is because it isn't clear on the matter. I'm a young-earth creationist, but I cannot prove that using scripture to those who would only argue the point with only scripture! The text is to vague on the matter, God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning, then the days start being described ...[text shortened]... ce or warm and fuzzy feelings tell you life could and would spring up without direction and purpose?
I do not think the DNA code came about by "chance and mindless processes". I think it might be a biological program written billions of years ago. But honestly, I don't really know where it came from. "No one knows how life got started on Earth", as Neil de Grasse Tyson says.
@bigdoggproblem saidNo worries, if that is the worst that happens between us we are in good shape.
A fact is a fact, regardless of people's opinions. There can still be different "types" of truths, tho. Different types of facts.
For example, "Suspect's clothing fibers found at a crime scene" is a forensic fact; "2+2 = 4" is a mathematical fact, etc.
I am glad to hear you have not given up on humans trying to understand things. 🙂
It's also good to hear you' ...[text shortened]... ; it's just that you were talking like science had stopped dead in its tracks hundreds of years ago.
I don't agree with different truths, there maybe different reference points to the facts or truth but they remain factual. Your mathematical fact remains a fact referencing 2+2=4, and your forensic fact on fibers found at the crime scene as it relates to those conditions remains a fact. They don't change unless something about the reference to them changes. Example: it was later discovered those fibers were not found there but planted at the crime scene then that becomes the new fact. The truth will never change as long as the references remain the same, unlike opinions that can change on a dime.
@bigdoggproblem saidI have to admit even if He could, that doesn't mean He did. The reason I'm still a young-earth creationist is that I do believe He is beyond all our notions, power, and knowledge. There are no limits of what God can do, except that which are inconsistent with His nature. Nothing He does, for example, can be unjust or not good all actions have to fall in line with those and all of His other attributes.
If you don't find Ussher's reasoning compelling, may I ask, why are you a young-earth creationist? What evidence do you find compelling for your viewpoint?
I do not think the DNA code came about by "chance and mindless processes". I think it might be a biological program written billions of years ago. But honestly, I don't really know where it came from. "No one knows how life got started on Earth", as Neil de Grasse Tyson says.
So being able to put creation together, setting it up for all life, then maintaining it seems like an easy thing for God. If there isn't a single particle so small that it escapes His total attention that He doesn't know everything about it and how it relates to everything else! If He sees everything at all times everywhere with that perfect knowledge, making a universe a few thousand years old doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I could be wrong about the time, but that is a little thing compared to the Creator.
I'd say no human was there, but if God created as it was shared with Moses we have someone there who was there and did it. If this is true than the facts will point towards this not away.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidThe problem for this kind of assertion, which you make umpteen times every year, and which you evade discussion of by studiously blanking out dissent and analysis, is that your subjective opinions about what you believe is "the truth" do not create - in and of themselves - any "objective" moral obligations for BigDoggProblem, except in your mind, and only in accordance with your personal ideological preferences and within a narrative framework that appeals to your imagination.
The truth will never change as long as the references remain the same, unlike opinions that can change on a dime.
@bigdoggproblem saidRight-o.
There is naturally some overlap between science and religion, but I think much of the discord between them is because people are using them to answer the wrong questions. They are both tools, and like any tool, they are best used for the right jobs.