Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Confirmation bias is great. It helps me believe what I WANT to believe, rather than what is likely to be true.
It is also the most common form of reasoning and also ears its ugly head even in science. Fortunately peer review or at least peer pressure will sideline a debunked theory even though the proponent will cling to it despite the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaminhealth
I gave myself over to GOOD...had some great teachers getting me to the added O.
Fortunately peer review or at least peer pressure will sideline a debunked theory even though the proponent will cling to it despite the evidence.
I read an article the other day about a very expensive satellite being sent up shortly with the mission to DISPROVE an aspect of Einstein's Special Relativity. Science at its finest. If it is successful in disproving this aspect of relativity (which has not been conclusively proven) it will set physics on its ear in some ways (although it is no more going to render relativity "wrong" in a practical sense, than relativity rendered Newtonian physics, which is still fine for everyday use in a variety of contexts, "wrong").
Of course in all probability the predictions of relativity will be confirmed. But it is striking to see science spending billions of dollars in efforts to disprove its own explanatory frameworks. That is how science works.
When have we ever seen religion design a study to prove that prayer doesn't work, or to prove that believers don't have better moral outcomes? The very idea is blasphemous. They aren't even comfortable with empirical studies to PROVE their baseless assertions, because the very effort to study them implies the potential that they aren't substantiatable.
If a theist's assertion is disproven he's left with nothing. If a scientist's hypothesis is disproven he's left with reality and the potential to discover a provable hypothesis that works better. No contest in my book.
I read an article the other day about a very expensive satellite being sent up shortly with the mission to DISPROVE an aspect of Einstein's Special Relativity. Science at its finest. If it is successful in disproving this aspect of relativity (which has not been conclusively proven) it will set physics on its ear in some ways (although it is no more going to render relativity "wrong" in a practical sense, than relativity rendered Newtonian physics, which is still fine for everyday use in a variety of contexts, "wrong").
Of course in all probability the predictions of relativity will be confirmed. But it is striking to see science spending billions of dollars in efforts to disprove its own explanatory frameworks. That is how science works.
When have we ever seen religion design a study to prove that prayer doesn't work, or to prove that believers don't have better moral outcomes? The very idea is blasphemous. They aren't even comfortable with empirical studies to PROVE their baseless assertions, because the very effort to study them implies the potential that they aren't substantiatable.
If a theist's assertion is disproven he's left with nothing. If a scientist's hypothesis is disproven he's left with reality and the potential to discover a provable hypothesis that works better. No contest in my book.
Over the last couple thousand years from the founding of the church we have had apostles and teachers and theologians publishing their studies for all to see.
By the way, prayer is not supposed to "work." We don't pray to twist God's arm (as if He literally has an arm to twist in the first place), but rather is to align our wills with His will.
It is also the most common form of reasoning and also ears its ugly head even in science. Fortunately peer review or at least peer pressure will sideline a debunked theory even though the proponent will cling to it despite the evidence.
That is not always the case. For instance, many studies on evolution have been peer reviewed and they still let the studies pass.
'You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.'
That was given only to the disciples/apostles and was concerning doing the miracles like Christ did:
John 14:12-14 Verily, verily, I am saying to you, he who is believing in Me, the works which I am doing he also will be doing, and greater than these will he be doing, for I am going to the Father." (13) And whatever you should be requesting in My name, this I will be doing, that the Father should be glorified in the Son." (14) If you should ever be requesting anything of Me in My name, this I will be doing."
Obviously Christ wasn't saying: "If you request that I destroy the earth, I will do so."
Luk_22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Thy intention, carry aside this cup from Me. However, not My will, but Thine, be done!"
Christ used prayer to align His will with God's will.
Over the last couple thousand years from the founding of the church we have had apostles and teachers and theologians publishing their studies for all to see.
I would not dignify the output of the faux discipline of theology as being the results of "studies". It is just arguing one baseless assertion against another based on other baseless assertions, all of which are inherently non-falsifiable. What I was talking about in my post was attempting to falsify hypotheses about things that are empirically falsifiable.
"faux discipline"? How is the discipline of theology faux/fake? Many theologians have given their entire lives to research.
Many astrologers have given their entire lives to calculating horoscopes, but that does not make their truth claims legitimate. People devote their lives to total galloping BS all the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
What you consider "baseless assertions" are rather significant to many people.
When those people who find it significant can demonstrate the basis for their truth claims with actual evidence and logic then I will happily withdraw the label "baseless assertion"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Many places in the bible can be proven as having existed or not along with captivities, etc.
And as you have certainly been reminded countless times, many places in the Harry Potter novels can be proven as existing or having existed; this does not transform Harry Potter into non-fiction.
Many astrologers have given their entire lives to calculating horoscopes, but that does not make their truth claims legitimate. People devote their lives to total galloping BS all the time.
Yes? And many evolutionists have given their entire lives to teaching evolution but that does not make their claims legitimate.
Quote:
When those people who find it significant can demonstrate the basis for their truth claims with actual evidence and logic then I will happily withdraw the label "baseless assertion"
The same goes for evolutionists.
Quote:
And as you have certainly been reminded countless times, many places in the Harry Potter novels can be proven as existing or having existed; this does not transform Harry Potter into non-fiction.
Yes, and some of the places in the The Descent of Man can be proven to be existing. However that does not transform The Decent of Man into non-fiction.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
