split personality of some forumers at EH?
-
I think u need a doctor. Go see one before too late.Originally posted by udontknowme:i am really psychotic lah ok...
so if things dont make sense, thats because the voices in my head are telling me what to do... -
errr...r u actually being serious here?Originally posted by Repented John 2:I think u need a doctor. Go see one before too late. -
Serious.Originally posted by udontknowme:errr...r u actually being serious here? -
now now now, wasn't someone saying let he who doesn't sin cast the 1st stone? So why is thats SAME someone is guilty of perversionS casting stones against others?Originally posted by Repented John 2:So u mean to say u not hypocrite? U always right?
At least i dare to speak up what's in my mind. I am no hypocrite then. What's so hypocritical abt speaking my ideas? This is a free country altho not as free as the US! I always wanted to be an american. Better still an ang moh as i have stated before. God bless America & of course God bless Singapore!
HYPOCRITE!
-
he's being serious alright. Seriously stupid.Originally posted by udontknowme:errr...r u actually being serious here? -
Jesus said to bless your enemies, so i bless u now: God bless you! I dont hate you unlike your hatred for me. Your nick says homophobes are idiots. Anyway God bless you.Originally posted by HENG@:now now now, wasn't someone saying let he who doesn't sin cast the 1st stone? So why is thats SAME someone is guilty of perversionS casting stones against others?
HYPOCRITE! 
-
I don't want you giving me the devil's blessings and passing it off as God's blessings. U're not my enemy. U're just someone I have no respect for. I respect my enemies. I hate them too.Originally posted by Repented John 2:Jesus said to bless your enemies, so i bless u now: God bless you! I dont hate you unlike your hatred for me. Your nick says homophobes are idiots. Anyway God bless you. U're not even worth hating since u dun qualify to be an enemy U're just a hypocrite who applies one standard to others and another for yourself. -
Huh?Originally posted by casino_king:The talk is cheap statement refers to the notion that the scientific method is flawed without coming out with any alternatives and reasoning behind the assertion.
In all your well considered post, where may I ask is your better alternative to the scientific method? BTW please acquaint yourself with what the scientific method is all about.
Since when was I talking about the flaws of the scientific method? You must have misunderstood me. And that is not to mention that I do not have any sort of a big issue with the scientific method at all.
Firstly, I am a little surprised you asked me about an 'alternative' to the scientific method, this means that you must have missed a great part of the point I am trying to make, or at least have a very simple view of the whole matter. I don't think you are quite getting what I am trying to say.
Secondly, I do not think for a moment that the scientific method ought to be discarded at all as a means of finding out truths about our physical world, if you think that I have some notion of an idea that there ought to be another system then you might be quite mistaken.
The real point is about how the scientific method should be treated, and what implications it ought to be given in our own lives. The flaw I was referring to indeed was not a flaw in the scientific method, but rather a flaw in the thinking that regards this very thing. A cooking knife in itself is a sound cutting tool, in the hands of a cook it does what it is supposed to do. However in the hand of a young child or a psychopath it might end up doing a lot of nonsensical and perhaps even harmful things. I was never referring to the sharpness of the scientific method, but rather the soundness of the hands that it has been grasped by.
First and foremost the real question is this: Is the scientific method the kind of tool that can be applied to every single situation and question that arises in life? And is it the kind of tool that ought to be relied on to give us a meaningful answer to so many things?
What you seem to be suggesting is that it is a kind of knife that can cut through any single situation and question, but it is from my personal experience with science (it is my passion indeed) that leads me to believe that there are a good deal of limitations inherent in the practice of science that makes it rather illogical for it to be used in certain situations.
First and foremost science is often a tool that tells you the how of things, and not the why. The already raises several interesting questions when one tries to use science to determine what it means to be human.
First and foremost the most basic view that science gives you in physics (the grand daddy of all science) is that you are an assembly of atoms and molecules, a geometric representation of energy. That is, sheer matter.
One level up, in chemistry, the atoms and molecules are interacting in a particular, way that enables this thing called biological processes to rise, a total concept of which is known as biological life.
Moving on, these biological systems are tied together by biological science, which tries to see the higher contexts of all these physics-chemical-biological interactions. It tells you that you are made of a certain group of chemicals that have given rise to proteins and that in some of these proteins are classified as genes which are a part of the entire process and which spells out the plan of how to put all the other proteins together that eventually assembles a member of Homo sapiens sapiens.
This is what you get so far when you dissect humanity with the tool of science, as you can tell it is a powerful tool for determining the physical nature of things, but as of yet it is virtually a tool that is worthless for mining anything other then a physical reason out of anything.
For example science cannot tell you anything about love other then it is a series of physical chemical reactions and process in the brain that arises these emotions. The meaning of these reasons are opaque to science. It is interested in describing to workings of the TV and photons and light of how an image is formed but not at all in determining the meaning of the program that is being played on it. It could be a sitcom, a drama, a news reportÂ… it is all of the same meaning to science.
Of course this is hardly surprisingÂ… after all science is like a kind of very specific cake knife that can only cut cake and little else. Drawing it across the banquet of life it would out cut out the morsels of the entire meal that is cake, or make inedible nonsense of other kinds of food.
The real argument is not really if the cake knife works, but if the entire meal is nothing but cake. It is this exact point which is highly debatable. The scientific method is can only be considered the best if absolutely nothing exists in the banquet of life but cake, it is a frame of mind which considers that cake, and nothing but cake is the whole show.
Now they may very well be right, but firstly is this view entirely logical? I am not sure but one this is for sure you cannot use the cake knife of science to determine that question.
It's like trying to see if there are any other kinds of food and determining the validly of their existence by using nothing but the ability of the cake knife to cut is as the litmus test of it. If the cake knife cannot cut it or produce a meaningful morsel out of it, then it is nonsense or just does not exist.
Firstly it is self-defeating because indeed if there exists food out there that is not cake, then it's obvious that the cake knife can never give us a proper answer on it's existence. And those who claim that the cake knife is the best would also mean claiming that there can be no other types of food out there but cake because only things that the cake knife can cut can be considered as nourishment- hence there is no food out there but cake- you can see that this is arguing in a circle.
This would mean that the entire world of soup, rice and all those other foods would be automatically assumed to not exist, or be complete nonsense. If you see nothing but the cake knife and say that it is the best to deal with life then indeed it's as good as saying the validity of all foods ought to be determined by the cake knife.
Now is such a belief justified then. If there exists a lot of things out there to which science cannot give us a proper and meaningful answer toÂ… then would it be logical indeed to claim that it always ought to be given utter priority in determining the validity and meaning of absolutely anything at all? Even in areas in which it would always draw a blank? It seems to me to be a great defect of logic.
The whole point of cutting is the separate certain materials into two parts, and certain materials would require different tools for the job. Using only one kind of tool to relentlessly attack any kind of material without regard for that notion is not useful cutting at all, and is completely different from the whole idea of cutting itself. The action of relentless cutting is different from actually managing to cut at all, which is the whole point of cutting. -
I am not entirely convinced that all Christians who attack homosexuality do it with an attitude of love. Indeed for many Christians (including me) it involves the hate of what we consider to be the sin, but the whole point of wanting to attack (and in fact even the hate of) the sin has to be out of love for the person who is doing it. If you don't love homosexuals, then you should not be attacking homosexuality at all.Originally posted by HENG@:I don't want you giving me the devil's blessings and passing it off as God's blessings. U're not my enemy. U're just someone I have no respect for. I respect my enemies. I hate them too. U're not even worth hating since u dun qualify to be an enemy U're just a hypocrite who applies one standard to others and another for yourself. -
let's not discuss if homosexuality is wrong or not.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I am not entirely convinced that all Christians who attack homosexuality do it with an attitude of love. Indeed for many Christians (including me) it involves the hate of what we consider to be the sin, but the whole point of wanting to attack (and in fact even the hate of) the sin has to be out of love for the person who is doing it. If you don't love homosexuals, then you should not be attacking homosexuality at all.
instead consider this: Is it all right for someone to correct another who is in the wrong, even though the 'another' may not like the sound of it? -
A very interesting question indeed. But I suppose we must shift such talk to another thread. On a personal note, I believe the one correcting must always act in the best interests of the other. Often this 'correction' can become a matter of superiority complex and this pride leads to many evils. I do not think many Homosexuals deserve much of the treatment that they get, and even so shabby treatment of Homosexuals under the pretext of 'correction'... I feel it's playing a lot into the Enemy's hands.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:let's not discuss if homosexuality is wrong or not.
instead consider this: Is it all right for someone to correct another who is in the wrong, even though the 'another' may not like the sound of it?
On the other hand, total inaction ia an evil itself. Certainly once should not stand by and not do anything if he is convinced that a person is doing something that is ultimately harmful to himself and others. We should not mistake kindness, in which the person only desires that there should be no unplesantness of any sort for the other party, for a true love of the individual who is in the wrong. -
The claims that religious people make falls below the standard set by the scientific method. If it falls below that standard then it must not be asserted like it is "good" evidence. Then the question becomes if it is not good evidence is it evidence? The question then becomes, what weight must we place on the "evidence?"Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:01 May 2006 · 07:10 PM
The religious people must understand that their claims are based on "personal experiences" rather then "good evidence." That it is, if you do not like the words fantasy and superstition, then beliefs and faith.
As for your new point about whether the scientific method is the right tool to dissect religious matters... it is a moot point.
Besides the scientific method, in scientific philosophy there is the idea of "falsifiability " please read up on FALSIFIABILITY.
That is to say, science and the scientific method is not interested in "beliefs" and "faith."
But where religion tries to encroach on scientific truths, then science must be given the preeminence and the religious beliefs must change. Since they operate on "beliefs" and "faith" and does not depend on proper observations and experimentation; they get it wrong all the time. Yet they cling on to their beliefs like it is some sort of eternal unchanging truth and go to wars and bomb themselves up to defend their "truths."
So now there is the question of what you personally want. A logical scientific approach to life or an approach based on beliefs and faith... in other words, fantasies and superstitions. Not that fantasies and superstitions does not do wonders to the individual's lives as many claimed. -
[An interesting post here, but then agan didn't you just restate my point about what I pretty much said?
Originally posted by casino_king:
Hasn't it yet been obvious then the claims that religious people make never intended to be set in accordance to the scientific method? Following through, one suspects the kind of logic that is set in place that insists on using the scientific method on religious claims. But this is not just limited to religion, there are plenty of other truth claims out there that fall below the scientific method.
[b]
The claims that religious people make falls below the standard set by the scientific method. If it falls below that standard then it must not be asserted like it is "good" evidence. Then the question becomes if it is not good evidence is it evidence? The question then becomes, what weight must we place on the "evidence?"
Let's look at one example, a statement and a belief that many people believe in:
'Free speech and freedom are human rights'
Immediately one sees several problems in trying to stick this to the scientific method. Firstly and foremost how exactly can 'freedom' be scientifically measured? What kind of free speech is free? If one looks through science the evidence suggests that there is no such thing as free will or choice, the actions that people take are simply very advanced animal instincts the result of chemical reactions in the brain.
'Freedom' and 'free speech' are concepts that fall below the scientific method, because first and foremost they suggest that people ought to have choice, when the scientific method of dissecting this aspect of humanity suggests that these are actually predetermined naturalistic processes not any more significant then breathing and drinking.
So why should they be rights? On what grounds? Certainly the bulk of the scientific method seems to suggest that we are not free creatures, and indeed isn't it more logical to hand over our freedom over to a certain elite to make our choices for us as this is more congruent with what the science suggests? Why don't we immediately point out to freedom activists that this thing they are fighting for can't be verified, and may indeed be refuted by the scientific method?
And it does not just stop there. A lot of what it means to be human, a lot of the values we hold. On a second look we realize that they don't hold a lot of scientific water, if what the science seems to suggest is what that must take preeminence (in your words) over our superstitions. Love then would be a superstition, so would be art, music, family relations and all those other things when put under the microscope of science.
We would then realize, if we give preeminence to it, that most of humanity is claptrap. And also this sets up a certain fatal error that we shall consider later.The religious people must understand that their claims are based on "personal experiences" rather then "good evidence." That it is, if you do not like the words fantasy and superstition, then beliefs and faith.
Firstly and foremost I doubt religion (at least of the kind I hold) would be considered much of a religion if it didn't hold a level of 'personal experience' for me. What I would dispute however, is that faith is based largely on personal experience and not 'good evidence'.
Secondly I am not entirely sure why you would choose the words 'supersition' and 'fantasy', unless they can be verified to be so. And of course this would be making a claim that you know it to be so. By this line of argument then, any kind of belief that requires a level of faith would then be considered supersition and fantasy, which is sheer nonsense if you realize it.
One cannot hold to any form of belief, not even the scientific one without a level of faith. We do not discover most of our facts for ourselves, but are instead told and taught them. Following through, one realizes that one has never stopped to check most of their facts, but have instead accepted them on authority and an assumption that most of them are pretty much the picture.
On what grounds have you accepted your 'good SCIENTIFIC evidence'? Have you personally went down to MIT to their linear accelerator and documented the TAU lepton as it were being discovered? Or was your only connection with it through a newspaper? Have you held a dinosaur bone in your hand and looked at it from all angles? Or have you bought immediately the idea that T.rex was a scavenger from the theory that paleontologist J. Horner suggested? Are you a scientist in a lab or a person surfing Wikipedia?
I am of course not suggesting that you have to personally hold, touch and experience all the facts to accept them, what I am pointing out is that for most purposes, we accept a lot of our facts by faith that they are true rather then actually having proper proof for them.
In fact you must realize that all scientific facts are derived from the personal experience of the scientist who was there, and you take your facts based on their authority and the faith that what they say is true. Very often you will not be able to prove any of your facts beyond pointing me to Wikipedia (as I have noticed you like to do), but yet you do not see me trying to write off your points as based on fantasy and superstition as much as you are unable to verify them in their totality, unlike of course what it seems you are demanding of me.
In fact to a point I accept your point of view as I engage you in debate. The is the basic principle why people can debate at all, that they have to hold certain common beliefs. -
I must disagree, for the explicit reason that that statement seems to me to be a dismissal rather then a rational refusal. Firstly I am unable to see how it is moot when one can draw a thought experiment from science:
As for your new point about whether the scientific method is the right tool to dissect religious matters... it is a moot point.
Imagine a cat owner asking a quantum physicist why his cat is eating cat chow from the food saucer. The quantum physicist then runs a tremendously complicated and lengthy quantum mechanical calculation on the computer that tracks every possible spin and position of ever particle of the cat, food and saucer until the final result ends up with the cat's nose in the saucer. This then is the quantum physicist answer to the cat owner, the sum of all the interactions of the particles of the cat, the food, and the saucer.
A biologist happens to walk and overhears the question. He then tells you cat owner that the cat is drinking from the saucer because the cat is a carnivorous animal that is now hungry. In the saucer is meat which is edible by the cat, hence the cat is eating from the saucer.
Which answer is more meaningful? As much as they are views of the same thing?Besides the scientific method, in scientific philosophy there is the idea of "falsifiability " please read up on FALSIFIABILITY.
Erm first and foremost you must realize that the scientific method is built up on beliefs and faith. And it is often because they want to verify beliefs that there is a science at all. If you believe in nothing, you would not be able to make any sense out of anything, nor do anything meaningful for that matter. If the scientists didn't believe that there were fundamental particles to discover they would not know to start up the particle accelerator nor know for what to look for in the first place.
That is to say, science and the scientific method is not interested in "beliefs" and "faith."
And faith, that is interesting. Science has yet to abandon faith for that matter, if you look at the forefront of science. Science is driven by faith, rather then as you would suggest a total following of wherever the evidence points. Indeed many scientists stake much of their professional reputations on things that might not even exist, but they believe in it anyway. I do not see as a result, that their faith is irrational or illogical, but rather because they have chosen to believe in something that they believe will be proved in time. In the meantime faith cannot be avoided.
The idea of the theory of everything remains largely as a scientific faith that much physicists are working hard and finding. As is the belief in the multiverse, which is a physical fantasy that many physics are working hard to prove despite the lack of the math to suggest so. To say that science and the scientific method is divorced from faith would be to suggest that they immediately give up their pursuits, which is of course not the case.
It seems to me that only armchair scientists, the ones who don't go to the labs and do the experiments are the ones that can come to a point where they think that science is devoid of beliefs and faiths. I suspect this is because all they have seen is the resultant work of much of the beliefs and faith of the scientists actually working on their various hypothesis that they have no reason to follow beyond belief and a particular faith in that belief.But where religion tries to encroach on scientific truths, then science must be given the preeminence and the religious beliefs must change. Since they operate on "beliefs" and "faith" and does not depend on proper observations and experimentation; they get it wrong all the time. Yet they cling on to their beliefs like it is some sort of eternal unchanging truth and go to wars and bomb themselves up to defend their "truths."
I'm not sure what you are trying to demonstrate here, perhaps a showing of the track record of religion and science? As for science being given preeminence over any kind of faith please refer to the cake knife theory. Secondly, also refer to my point about certain curious secular beliefs that people still hold onto despite scientific truths. Think about a basic value such as human freedom, which science does not support. Why do yet people fight for it? Now shall it be controlled as well?
Firstly and foremost there have been completely secular beliefs that subjected themselves completely to science (or even birthed from it) and I have yet to see a clean track record as well. Communism was such a belief system based on wanting to use science to create a 'new man'. Look at the track record of Russia. How many people were sterilized and gassed because of eugenics? Where it was considered a scientific duty to breed a better human (because evolution is the scientific law anyway)? Consider the belief in races, where people used to think that one kind of human could be scientifically proven to be superior then the other, and hence the enslavement of an inferior race would be justified.
I think people fight and kill over science pretty much as well, that bit is very clear from history. I don't think religion kills, rather it's the notion that you ought to kill for your beliefs that does. Stick to any one way of thought with enough fevour and you would be willing to kill for it. Religion is no exception, nor is science.So now there is the question of what you personally want. A logical scientific approach to life or an approach based on beliefs and faith... in other words, fantasies and superstitions. Not that fantasies and superstitions does not do wonders to the individual's lives as many claimed.
There also exists the question that if people who have faith cannot be logical and scientific, or that if scientific people cannot have faith as well. It is my personal belief that such a state is not only possible, but even desirable.
I can quote two examples out of hand. C.S.Lewis, Albert Einstein.
Having said that, I think I have also pointed out that many people who claim to have a logical scientifc approach to life don't really hold out to that claim when their beliefs are exaimined. It is very likely a large proportion of their thought have been given over to things that are not verifiable by science or scientific logic at all. Do they not bother you as well, or does it only bother you when some of these thoughts are religious?
Personally I do not accept the notion of fantasy, what I believe has to be true, but that assurance of truth taken in faith or reason. But the core remains that what I believe has to be true for me to want to believe it in. If this Christianity nonsense was untrue, then one might as well abandon it entirely, or at least reduce it to some atheistic system of values. -
If you had bother to read the previous post by the religious people; Buddhist as well as Christians; then you would have realised that they place their evidence not only equal but even above evidence aquired through the scientific method where their religion and science intersect.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:02 May 2006 · 01:04 AM
Science is not interested when religious people say: I believe in God. Science is interested when they say: I believe in God and I have evidence that God exists.
Science is not interested when religious people say: I believe God created the earth and the universe. Science is interested when religious people say that they have evidence that God created the earth and the universe.
Science is not interested when Buddhist say: I believe that Shariras have magical powers. Science is interested when Buddhist claim that Shariras cannot be destroyed.
As for Feedom... when did proponents of freedom ever claim that they have scientifically proven evidence that Freedom is good? Freedom is in the realm of philosophy. Ah but when the proponents of Freedom starts to make claims that can be measured with properly conducted experiments; then science will ask: "Did you do the experiments and studies before you conclude? -
I will tell you your flaw in your logic here. The question is not whether we have "faith" in what is claimed. The issue is on what grounds the claims were made? Was it made as a result of using the scientific method or were the claims made because somebody dreamt it up?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I am of course not suggesting that you have to personally hold, touch and experience all the facts to accept them, what I am pointing out is that for most purposes, we accept a lot of our facts by faith that they are true rather then actually having proper proof for them. -
I have to go now, I will respond to your other arguments.
-
This is good, we are getting somewhere. But I suggest that perhaps it would be better for us to focus on one issue at a time.
The problem is this: I am entirely sure that on many points we both have a lot to say, but the thing is in this forum is that there is simply a lack of space to say all you would want about a particular issue. The result can be that in our arguments are points which are very much lessed argued and detailed then we would like them to be, and hence harder to understand.
I have noticed a trend where you end up stating what I just said, but in a different way because you missed a point that I might have not brought up in sufficent detail. I have tried to be as detailed as possible but it's apparent that there simply is a lack of space here. The fault is mine, but I suggest we try to narrow our arguments on point topics until they are resolved or at least parted on a mutal argeement of stalemate.
Hence now we shall focus on the 'interest' of the scientific method. -
so is this a thread on christians as forumers or christian as a religion/faith?
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
I have read them. Indeed what you say is true about the religious people (including me).
If you had bother to read the previous post by the religious people; Buddhist as well as Christians; then you would have realised that they place their evidence not only equal but even above evidence aquired through the scientific method where their religion and science intersect.
But I would like to point out that that is very much what faith is a lot about. Now there is a problem here, because by the very virtue of faith one cannot only consider the visible and comprehensible evidence to be the totality of things. One has to consider the element of a higher order beyond humanly comprehensible evidence, and hence internally, this is a reasoning that is perfectly logical.
If I believe in a God that can intervene in nature, then I ought not to place my absolute trust in the evidence, I will have to (logically) keep an eye out for any possibly tampering of the evidence by another force that can't be directly accounted for by what I can physically interact with.
Now the issue of if such a force or system beyond exists is an issue for another post, for the real question here if religious people are being stupid in wanting to put the weight of evidence in a different light... which I don't think that is the case. All this is only nonsense, and we should only consider the physcial evidence if indeed our religion, of whatever form, is false.
Science is not interested when religious people say: I believe in God. Science is interested when they say: I believe in God and I have evidence that God exists.
It's a bit like coming across a dead body. In a set of beliefs where the person had to be completely alone before he died, no foul play is possible and the totality of any evidence will point to that direction. But in another set which believes that the person was in interaction with other individuals before he died, the possibility of foul play arises, and a lot more possibilities are present. The evidenceScience is not interested when religious people say: I believe God created the earth and the universe. Science is interested when religious people say that they have evidence that God created the earth and the universe.
Hmm... aren't you only stating half of it. Firstly and formost you are correct in saying that science demands evidence. But at the same time science is also even more interested in beliefs. It's easy to draw out an example why. Firstly and foremost you can't make sense of any evidence without having any beliefs. If I didn't believe there was such a thing called venom, I would not know what to make of a vial of stenotoxin.
Science ought to be interested when people claim that there is a God that created the earth and the universe (and possibly a multiverse). And a true science would always weight the evidence with a balanced set of mind. Now this topic is a little big to go on in here before it's properly hammered out, but I have noticed that the many biggest scientists in physics are not militant athiests (note Steven Hawkings, Albert E.)... if they don't believe they do maintain an agnosticness. And even if they don't believe in the notion of the Jeudo-Christian God, they do not discount the possibility of a universal power that is above the laws of observable physics. Why is this so?
Has the weight of evidence suggested against the religious claim, or any sort of theism?
Or is the question still out there?
And more tellingly... is there really no evidence, or is it that there is plenty of it but we have yet to truly consider the case like a true judge of things?As for Feedom... when did proponents of freedom ever claim that they have scientifically proven evidence that Freedom is good? Freedom is in the realm of philosophy. Ah but when the proponents of Freedom starts to make claims that can be measured with properly conducted experiments; then science will ask: "Did you do the experiments and studies before you conclude?
Indeed, but then on what grounds is this philosophy valid then? If the scientific method was the whole show and best method of determining the validity of any particular set of beliefs... why ought freedom be excluded?
How can you make any claims and rightsabout freedom when it's a vaporous philosophy that cannot contact the reality that science holds (our lives and our world)? Especially when such a notion would affect our lives, which falls very much under the realm that science can touch? It has to mean something in the real world, and that something it means has to be verified one way or another.
And this is not to say that even if the proponents of freedom have nothing to say about science, science would not have nothing to say about freedom. Indeed many experiements in quantum physics, biology and the like has a lot to say about human freedom.
H.G Wells was a scientific naturalist that was led by scientific evidence to believe that humans didn't have any rational basis for such notions as good or bad or free will for that matter.
The weight of scientific evidence seems to suggest that our thoughts and choices are not truly free at all, but rather the computing of a rather complex computer trying to solve problems with no real ability to truly think for itself at all. 'Men are just machines' as the naturalists claim. Your ability to want to do good or be reasonable is not better then your liking for cheese.
As you suggested if science conflicts which personal beliefs and experience, science should triumph... then why have we yet to do so in many areas? Is it because we decide to keep them seperate from science just because we make no truth claims? But isn't this nonsense on moment's thought? To claim that freedom ought to be a right is to make a truth claim that worse, would be physically verifiable by science as bodies of people go about exerting this right. In a idea where the scientific method has to have a say on such a physical claim, freedom much come under it's judge and the only way it can be resolved is if it can be scientifically proven that there is such a possibility as freedom and good.
But yet it is not. If that is so it means that there are some things which the scientific method should not have a say in at all, and then that would mean that it is not indeed the all-emcompassing method to approach life with. But to suggest it would be to suggest that there is a higher law under which even the scientific method is subject to, and to which the scientific method only reveals a small part of. -
My dear friend, it appears it has become both.Originally posted by Ito_^:so is this a thread on christians as forumers or christian as a religion/faith? -
Ah that is the question, but I must protest the fact that you have seen a flaw in my argument, in fact it seems that indeed you are stating what I have been trying to get you to see:Originally posted by casino_king:I will tell you your flaw in your logic here. The question is not whether we have "faith" in what is claimed. The issue is on what grounds the claims were made? Was it made as a result of using the scientific method or were the claims made because somebody dreamt it up?
That a faith in any belief is not in itself a bad thing, but if the belief itself is justified.
So is theism just some fantasy or does it have some rather convincing supportive motions in science?
Shall we find out? -
wah lau eh, this forum alot of issues one leh.....
-
Let me point out certain glaring flaws in your argument. You said that science depends on faith. This is in error. Science takes special care to ensure that evidence is strigently verfied before a new layer is added on top of it. If you read the link I gave you on scientific method you would have realised that.
At no point is faith allowed. Let me give you an example. Scientists recently studying the "junk" portion of our human genome discovered some surprising results. These results suggest that the part considered junk is not "junk" but is really functional.
You do the maths, you look at your data and it all suggest that it is not "junk." The religious people will say; well since there is no explanation other than it is not junk then it is not junk. This is "faith."
If the scientist then goes round the world and make the claim, you know what will happen? He will be laughed off as an idiot. It is like when Christians say that somebody was healed becuase there is no other explanation for the healing other than he was prayed for.
The scientist would have been laughed off by the rest of the scientific community because they will ask him: "this brain child of yours... did you do the experiment to determine if what you think the data suggest is as expected?"
You see, you do not go around and say that somebody was healed as a result of prayers.... if you think that then the thing to do is conduct an experiment to determine the accuracy of your premise. -
you're taking a very anthropocentric point of view in this argument, by stating that what we as humans perceive through our limited senses is all that there is there. Information derived through human empiricism and rationalism is all based on perception, which we until today, have not really proved that it is entirely accurate.Originally posted by casino_king:Let me point out certain glaring flaws in your argument. You said that science depends on faith. This is in error. Science takes special care to ensure that evidence is strigently verfied before a new layer is added on top of it. If you read the link I gave you on scientific method you would have realised that.
At no point is faith allowed. Let me give you an example. Scientists recently studying the "junk" portion of our human genome discovered some surprising results. These results suggest that the part considered junk is not "junk" but is really functional.
You do the maths, you look at your data and it all suggest that it is not "junk." The religious people will say; well since there is no explanation other than it is not junk then it is not junk. This is "faith."
If the scientist then goes round the world and make the claim, you know what will happen? He will be laughed off as an idiot. It is like when Christians say that somebody was healed becuase there is no other explanation for the healing other than he was prayed for.
The scientist would have been laughed off by the rest of the scientific community because they will ask him: "this brain child of yours... did you do the experiment to determine if what you think the data suggest is as expected?"
You see, you do not go around and say that somebody was healed as a result of prayers.... if you think that then the thing to do is conduct an experiment to determine the accuracy of your premise.
Without delving too far into the epistemological realm, what i'm trying to say is that what we as humans perceive and measure not necessarily are true, due to many limitations that we often overlook, hence we cannot scientifically prove whether there is a God or not. My personal take is that if God had made it so easy for us to know all this, faith would not be required at all, and faith is one thing that enables God to do great works through us.
For a 'scientific method' way of justifying why I believe, I have to state that the main tenets of Christianity rests on the Bible. The Bible is a historically reliable source of information, as every place in there described was confirmed by archaeological finds, and writings of secular historians also corroborate with the Bible on many accounts.
Having established the Bible as a historically inerrant document, the Bible was written by multiple people over a period of time spanning generations, yet the whole Bible flows as a single piece of literature, and this gives evidence that the people who wrote it were inspired by God. Furthermore, Jesus fulfilled all 48 prophecies of a messiah that were written in the old testament, and the odds of any one man fulfilling all 48 are 1 in 10^157. By the science of probability, this rules out any random person accidentally fulfilling them, as in comparison, the number of electrons in the universe is estimated to be 10^79.
These are just a few points that i have raised. I shall stop here as I have to study for some upcoming tests soon.