Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:12:14 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I read your various thoughtful and interesting comments, but I felt the
> above mostly addressed them. Tell me which message and I'll try for a more
> detailed response.
The issue that I'm bringing up elsewhere is in faith of perception. Not in
the scientific method, per se, but with the data it examines being based on
faith-- as for a SPECIFIC post... I dunno... if you've read them all (and
the new ones since then) and don't feel compelled to jump in there, then,
well, no progress... But if you're not sure which I'm talking about, see the
sub-thread starting with:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8751
and also the sub-thread starting at:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8764 (which brings into it some
arguments from the above-mentioned thread)
The ideas are kinda spread out across multiple posts, though... makes it
rather tough to pin down...
> No, they have faith in their own senses only so far as it goes, and know
> that other scientists are going to question theirs. Question your senses,
> question your instruments, question your methods, question your data,
> question your results. I repeat: lack of faith is the safest course.
I agree completely. But, see below.
> > Have you done ALL the research necessary for modern science, because
> > you didn't believe it when it was presented to you? No, but you take it on
> > faith, with the exception, however, that you are not as adamant about that
> > which you take on faith as that which you do not.
>
> Actually, no. I don't take it on faith. I didn't take "cold fusion" on
> faith, for example. I usually adopt a wait and see attitude to see what
> research supports or doesn't support an issue. I don't always agree with a
> scientist's findings.
Ah... but I would argue that you DO take their word on faith. If you see
lots of scientific journals and read lots of articles about the experiments,
do you not accept these as true on faith? If I write an article for
Scientific American wherein I post some experiments that I've done matching
experiements done elsewhere, comparing the results and drawing the
conclusions, do you not take the results (both of my experiments and the
others I quote) on faith? Do you believe me that I performed the experiment?
Or do you doubt that I did it at all? What's to prevent it from being a big
hoax unless you actually go out and PROVE that I did the experiment? But do
you think that's worth your time? No. Of course not. You've been shown time
and again that articles of the type I've theoreticallly written for
Scientific American are correct, and you're hence willing to accept it
(provided it sounds plausible) on FAITH.
> > If you were a
> > paleontologist (sp?) you'd be a lot more certain of evolution than you would
> > be of, say, nuclear fission.
>
> Being less certain doesn't mean you simply are accepting things on faith.
Ah, but as I say above, the extent to which you DO beleive IS accepted on
faith. BUT, your level of surity increases when you've seen something firsthand.
> > Not all do-- many just refute the theory itself without knowing why they
> > have such a knee-jerk reaction to it. I don't presume that of Steve,
> > however...
>
> They feel threatened by it (and to skip qualifying everything over and over,
> not everyone and not necessarily Steve)..
And, just to draw the parallel, you feel threatened by the opposite. If God
existed in the manner Steve suggests, that would threaten YOUR beliefs. And
that's precicely why we're here to argue :) -- because we all think we're
right, and we want to test ourselves, test our theories (and others'), and
attempt to share them.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) See above: I don't always agree with a scientist's findings. So, no, I didn't take it on faith. And there were a fair number of creditable scientists that confirmed the cold fusion experiment (the problem not being the results, but the test (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) If he runs on about evolution being bankrupt without addressing the other points, I think we have an answer through a non-answer. If he simply drops the subject, we probably have an answer, but can't be sure of it. Anyway, a non-answer can be (...) (24 years ago, 19-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
