Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:50:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4495 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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!
|
I’d rather not know than get my answers from a pulp paperback from 2000 years
ago ;)
| |
| |
--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....
|
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 worse
because of it.
| |
| |
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.
|
That’s simply not true. I’m sure if you look through the Nobel Prize list you’ll
find plenty of active Christians and members of other religions. The point is,
as I said before, that these people separate their religious beliefs from their
science, not because they have to, but because it would make them worse
scientists if they didn’t.
| |
| |
--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
|
As I said elsewhere in this thread there is overwhelming evidence for the Big
Bang hypothesis. I wouldn’t call that conveniently ignoring the question, I
would call that behaving like scientists and considering the evidence at hand
and what hyptheses best suit them.
And I think you’ll find that not only are there well developed theories but the
search for evidence is very much encouraged. As a non “start-of-the-universe”
scientist I find the amount of money and research time spent on the question
ridiculous. It has minimal practical benefit and yet recieves a lions share of
funding.
More to the point if I were you I’d be wary of the topic of convenience. I would
have to say that explaining the origin of the universe by choosing to believe
that some mythical creature created it and where your evidence is an old book is
the height of convenience.
Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote: <snip> (...) That may be. I seem to remember reading something about the topic; perhaps I can do some digging around. (...) Yeah, I meant to address this elsewhere and forgot: I'm not talking about (...) (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
|
| (...) 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! (...) I think you missed my meaning. I meant scientists who are Christian, not "Christian (...) (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
|
|
|
|
