| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it
> > exists outside of science, it has nothing to do with science, but you keep
> > citing it as if it does. It has no logic, you just seem to hope that no one
> > notices the lack of substance.
>
> Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with
> science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever did--My point
> was the exact opposite--aspects of emotions are *outside* scientific
> purview, and to further my point--are they less valid?
I said "an emotional appeal", not emotions. I've clipped the rest of your
paragraph because it was preceeding on a false premise. An emotional appeal
is one that does not rely on fact, but instead tries to invoke an emotional
response to gain acceptance.
> Let me be clear to the those obtuse individuals in the world that have no
> concept of allusion or metaphor or similie or other linguisitic ideas--
>
> Sciencism - newly invented word (by Dave) which places science in the
> recently dethroned position of God as the Ruler of all that there is. A
> concept held by staunch religious fanatics of science that cannot see *any*
> possible idea and concept which *may* exist outside of the scientific domain.
This illustrates my previously made point: you constantly try to redefine
science as religion. You do this to bring things in alignment to your world
view, not science's.
>
> Your fanatical belief in a man made institution that supposedly 'knows all'
> is utter nonsense.
You (Dave) are going to have to start making clear when you (Dave) say "You"
that you (Dave) mean me (Bruce) when you (dave) say "you" or whether you
(dave) mean "generic everyone" when you (dave) say "You".
So lets get something clear, if you are refering to me personally, I have
indicated no such thing.
> > Stop. Halt. Stop this nonsense once and for all. I did not say science
> > covers *all* aspects of life. It is something you keep repeating endlessly
> > despite corrections, nothing more.
>
>
> No, I do not endlessly repeat that assertion.
Yes you do. You did it again just above.
> I know it to be true, and now
> that you have admitted it to be true, I can stop.
>
> Thank you
You misconstrue, and I think willfully. No, science does not cover all
aspects of life, but that statement does not validate the conclusions that
you have tried to attach to that statement (see way down near the end).
> What I read is that belief in God is 'blind', that we who believe are less
> than those that don't.
If you chose to misconstrue the truth of faith being blind somehow makes you
lesser, that is a problem on your end, not mine.
> So two points--I can live with the concepts of God,
> as well as the concepts of science, for *I* don't believe they're mutually
> exclusive, and I should be able to have my faith and be an equal partner in
> the human endeavour and *not* feel like my faith is being degraded or
> belittled by those that don't believe.
You have attempted to define your faith as scientific, and science as yet
another religion. Once you enter the realm of science, expect to be
questioned and offer some proof. You having chosen the battleground, and it
is hardly fair for you to cry about your beliefs being questioned when you
offered them up as scientific.
> I thank you for edifying and supporting my belief system. I, in turn
> support your quest for more knowledge and scientific pursuits and if I can
> help, let me know.
Again, I do not support your belief system. I simply do not admit to the
validity of your straw man argument.
> > > Not once have *I* asserted that science claims that it is good for
> > > everything.
> >
> > You keep asseting that *science* claims that, which it doesn't. You are
> > merely splitting hairs about what way you have gotten it wrong.
>
>
> I assert that it has been said in some posts here that science is the only
> way to understand everything.
I do not recall this. It was more like, science provides the best and most
consistent answers for explaining the physical world around us (physical in
this instance would include energy states). You are very consistent at
misconstruing things, so you'll have to be very specific on who said what
for me to let this claim pass unchallenged (it becomes a straw man argument
- knock down science for something it never said).
> I further stated that they *could* exist, even tho they're outside the
> purview of science. You, Bruce, as well as many many folks, have also
> supported the premise that things *could* be outside the domain of science,
> perhaps forever.
Yes, they might. Then again, they might not. You only wish to acknowledge
the former.
> > You are again attempting to reduce science to a religious level so that you
> > can attack it better. It's the crux of my argument against you from the
> > word go.
>
> I'm attempting to reduce science to a religious level? If my Christianity
> is supposedly, as *most* Christians assert, the end all/be all of existance,
> how can I reduce science to a level higher than itself?
You have not been able to successfully attack science in its own arena
(creationism is not scientific and evolution is). So, you attempt to move
the debate to an arena that is less demanding of proof (i.e. to a lower
level of proof). That is what I mean by reduce science to a religious level.
>
> Isn't the idea of 'reducing science to a religious level' a value judgement?
> Aren't value judgements inherently not part of hte scientific method, and
> are regulated to the same area as emotions?
No. See above.
>
> And another point, where did *I* attack science? You know how I feel about
> it. I think may have stated it before so no need to reiterate.
"Evolution is not science." "Evolution denies the existence of God."
"Science is the new God that has the answer for everything". And on and on.
> No, sciencism was a Dave made construct for this thread and this thread
> alone. I do that sometimes. It makes the point with one word rather than a
> whole sentence--'you (generic) may have problems with my God, but you just
> supplanted him with Sciencism'
A specious theory, so drawing conclusions from it is useless (and yet
another attempt to redefine science as a religion).
> If the 'other side' is science with its theories and constructs, then my
> friend, I'm in the trenches with you and be damned who attack us head on.
> But know where I stand also, from one friend to another, I believe science
> can never encompass all of what it is to be human (and I believe in God).
See, you try and slip God in there so that if I agree that science does not
encompass everything, you take that as a validation of God. This is what I
mean by I don't support your theories (see way above).
> For the record, I am *not* a Creationist, Scientific Creationist or
> whatever. I do appreciate the big bang theory and I think, as it stands, it
> pretty much fits what is known. Also understand that Creationists should go
> back to the bible and read Genesis 1 and 2 again, in context, and know it
> isn't a *historical* document--it's God's word to us to help us understand
> Him--getting bogged down in Creationism does *not* help our God out at
> all--but I'm just speaking for me. I quote my girlfriend--'The last time I
> cared about Creationism and Evolution was about grade 10 (and she went to a
> Christian high school).' Your fellow Christians (The ones I talk to anyway)
> think it's a bad thing, not exactly the same as bombing abortion clinics,
> but, either way, you're pretty much pissing people off from even
> *considering* the concept of God--just read this thread and the other one to
> see that.
This is at odds with what you said earlier in the debate.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Show me. Just don't say it's a false premise and clip it. It's like, 'I don't agree with that--it doesn't make scientific sense, therefore its false or invalid' which *is* the very nature of this discussion. I never wanted to invoke an (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Love to read it, and I'll get to it. (...) Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
