Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:50:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4578 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
| |
Hi John,
I’ve taken the liberty of only responding to those points which relate to
what I believe to be your misunderstanding of science. Here is an
article on the scientific
method for further reading.
| |
Really? At what point during a rational evaluation process do you decide
something? How can two scientists who evaluate the same evidence draw
different conclusions?
|
This occurs in much the same way that two biblical scholars draw different
conclusions: because people can interpret the evidence differently. The
difference being that in the fullness of time one scientist’s views should be
proved to be better than the others by standing up to more experiments than
the other’s view. The same cannot be said about religious interpretation.
|
In the fullness of time (ie the end of our lives) we’ll either all know or it
won’t matter anyway;-) This sounds like the time to mention Pascal’s wager!
| |
--snip--
| |
Not so much in debates, but IRL. Christian researchers, for example, are
considered second-class scientists. The same can be said for any religious
academic.
|
They are second-class scientists as a general rule which is why they are
considered as such. Science is about postulating and testing. Since Christian
“scientists” rarely have ways of testing their postulates (without the
circular argument of referring to the Bible) they are second-class
scientists.
|
I think you missed my meaning. I meant scientists who are Christian, not
“Christian scientists” as in... well, whatever that is....
| |
Of course there are many scientists who are Christian and are
perfectly good scientists, they are the ones who consider the Bible as a
source of religious revelation rather than of scientific fact.
|
That’s what I’m talking about. But even these scientists get “the look” for
believing in anything that is beyond the scope of science.
| |
--snip--
| |
| |
OK, then let me restate. I see no more reason to posit the existence of a
Creator than I do Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Christian God. It
would seem the onus is not on me to disprove the existence of any
hypothetical supernatural being someone might conjure up.
|
But the onus is on you to rationally explain how a universe suddenly just
came into being. --snip--
|
No it’s not. The onus is on the person making the claim, not on the person
disputing it.
|
Okay, then a rationalist is safe as long as he never asks the question WRT to
the origin of the universe. Convenient.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) I'd rather not know than get my answers from a pulp paperback from 2000 years ago ;) (...) I think you'll find you're quite mistaken there. I know plenty of scientists who are Christian and I've never noticed their views to be taken better or (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| Hi John, I've taken the liberty of only responding to those points which relate to what I believe to be your misunderstanding of science. Here is an (URL) article> on the scientific method for further reading. (...) This occurs in much the same way (...) (18 years ago, 23-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
86 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
