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.
We have already established that spiritual issues are almost impossible to study scientifically
When did we establish that? I certainly never signed on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
Actually, I think there is a lot of wiggle room and many of the people who favour science and the scientific method for validating phenomena may, in their own private lives, believe in God and all manner of other things which cannot be scientifically validated.
"Science" is too broad a brush. There are lots of physicists who are devoutly religious. Some of the best astronomers in the world are Jesuits. But I don't know that I've ever met an anthropologist who wasn't a die-hard materialist. I'm sure there are some out there, but I've never run into one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
I just do not see how one person can be a science-type in one part of their life and a religious-type in another part of their life. It seems rather hypocritical to me.
Science, Religion, Philosophy are all the search for Truth. They are not in conflict when used properly. Where people get in to trouble is when they start trying to use Religion to prove or disprove Science, or when Science starts trying to prove or disprove Religion. They are entirely different approaches. It would be like trying to win the Super Bowl by hitting a home run. You're using the wrong rules in the wrong game.
Actually, I think there is a lot of wiggle room and many of the people who favour science and the scientific method for validating phenomena may, in their own private lives, believe in God and all manner of other things which cannot be scientifically validated.
I just do not see how one person can be a science-type in one part of their life and a religious-type in another part of their life. It seems rather hypocritical to me.
As has been pointed out by myself and others many times, this claim is incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of what science and scientists are about, particularly the wide variety of positions scientists take with regard to materialism and faith in the unseen, from Dawkins' hard position to Christian scientists like Miller and Polkinghorne with Gould and his non-overlapping magisteria somewhere in between, and neo-creationists like Behe on the fringe:
Not only do believers here not read what folks like myself have written on topics like this, they appear not to read and attempt to understand anything that does not agree with their own prejudices on topics like this. The sad part is, no one will read or understand this and someone will be back again in a couple of weeks making the same groundless claims about what scientists are "really" like.
EDIT: And because I'm Orthodox, I have to include is a video in which Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (a physicist before he became a monk) discusses Genesis and science:
"Science" is too broad a brush. There are lots of physicists who are devoutly religious. Some of the best astronomers in the world are Jesuits. But I don't know that I've ever met an anthropologist who wasn't a die-hard materialist. I'm sure there are some out there, but I've never run into one.
As has been pointed out by myself and others many times, this claim is incorrect and shows a complete lack of understanding of what science and scientists are about, particularly the wide variety of positions scientists take with regard to materialism and faith in the unseen, from Dawkins' hard position to Christian scientists like Miller and Polkinghorne with Gould and his non-overlapping magisteria somewhere in between, and neo-creationists like Behe on the fringe:
Not only do believers here not read what folks like myself have written on topics like this, they appear not to read and attempt to understand anything that does not agree with their own prejudices on topics like this. The sad part is, no one will read or understand this and someone will be back again in a couple of weeks making the same groundless claims about what scientists are "really" like.
EDIT: And because I'm Orthodox, I have to include is a video in which Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (a physicist before he became a monk) discusses Genesis and science:
Thank you. I find the weird lies about science, scientific methods and scientists to be very tedious.
I cannot believe that there are even lies told about these on this forum any longer as they are always countered and do not help the credibility of those telling the lies.
So how does science explain some of the cornerstones of religion. virgin birth, angels/demons, burning bushes, bleeding statues, water into wine, etc etc. How are scientific methods applied to religious phenomena, miricles, Godly acts etc?
I seems to me there must be a fair amount of wiggle-room being taken for these aspects of religion to be embraced into science, scientific methodology and by scientists who are able to call themselves members of the faithful.
What are these wierd lies to which you are referring Old Guard?
Counter arguments are not preferable to the original opinions, they are other points of view to be considered when each reader makes up their own mind. In that case the credibility of the opinion poster has no bearing on the actual truth or falseness of the issue. Certainly not in my mind anyway.
What are these wierd lies to which you are referring Old Guard?
"There are countless (yes, that many) people who believe they have evidence there is life or evidence for life in our Solar System. Science tells us there is no evidence. Which of course is true. However, it does nothing to really discover the truth."
Science does not tell us anything. We use it to learn. "Science" does not tell us there is no evidence, scientists just say they have not found evidence (yet).
You have also stated that scientists are not looking for sings of life on Mars. Which they are.
So how does science explain some of the cornerstones of religion. virgin birth, angels/demons, burning bushes, bleeding statues, water into wine, etc etc. How are scientific methods applied to religious phenomena, miricles, Godly acts etc?
I seems to me there must be a fair amount of wiggle-room being taken for these aspects of religion to be embraced into science, scientific methodology and by scientists who are able to call themselves members of the faithful..
Try "Science and Providence" by John Polkinghorne for starters. Like Archbishop Puhalo, he's a theologian who's also a physicist.
So how does science explain some of the cornerstones of religion. virgin birth, angels/demons, burning bushes, bleeding statues, water into wine, etc etc. How are scientific methods applied to religious phenomena, miricles, Godly acts etc?
Well, when it comes to the Virgin Birth, until Doc Brown is willing to share his time machine, science has no way to prove or disprove that particular claim. Modern medical science can tell us, “A virgin cannot conceive a child,” but that is the entire point of the original claim, isn’t it?
Re: angels and demons. Science deals in the material, how would science evaluate the existence of non-material beings? The best science can do is investigate the claims of material evidence, which is the point of the original article I posted.
Re: Burning bushes. Doc Brown, can we have the keys to the DeLorean?
When it comes to other things like bleeding statues, the Host turning to flesh, etc. … I’m certainly no expert. But I have seen a documentary or two on them and read a few articles. Some claims have indeed been proven to be frauds. Other investigations have concluded the presence of real blood and real flesh but can offer no explanation as to how it happened. Which again, is kind of the entire point of a miracle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20
Counter arguments are not preferable to the original opinions, they are other points of view to be considered when each reader makes up their own mind. In that case the credibility of the opinion poster has no bearing on the actual truth or falseness of the issue. Certainly not in my mind anyway.
Agreed.
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.
Modern medical science can tell us, “A virgin cannot conceive a child,” but that is the entire point of the original claim, isn’t it?