Glenn Harve

People place so much faith in science, yet tens of thousands of "scientific theories" have fallen by the wayside. More yet still will. It seems those who know the least about the history of science are those most likely to cling to it,,, like a religion. Yet those who know more about mans history are far better able to understand concepts of faith and how they play a crucial role in the grander scheme. If one doubts that, look at modern society. Its chock full of illusions, most of them based on falsehhoods masquerading as "modern education".

loosecanon Loc: Central Texas

Me, I'm just gonna go out and take more pictures.

Glenn Harve

Shoot some UFOs

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

See, this is an example of someone who is utterly clueless as to what a "scientific theory" is. The scientific method is simply one where, after observing something to happen (the moon shows up most nights, but in different forms) one asks "why is that so?"

Any theories that arise - it sits on the back of a giant turtle, it's a pinhole in the navy blue blanket that covers the sun at night which changes shape over time, it's a sphere that orbits the earth and reflects sunlight off its surface where the Earth's shadow causes the crescent shape, etc. - are just that - theories. And if you come up with a more accurate explanation, then your theory will replace the existing one. Ever hear of Newton's laws of motion? Well they turned out to be not quite right - though the difference between the expected outcomes calculated by them and relativity theory equations are only noticeable at near-light speeds, so Newton's equations are fine for moon shots and the like.

The point is, in science a "theory" is merely the word used for the latest accepted version of our understanding of reality. Of course, less-than-scientifically-literate types use that word as a weapon to imply that "evolution is only a theory" and other juvenile nonsense.

Aliens visiting Earth to colonize or whatever is as silly a set of beliefs, scientifically speaking, as a guy in a robe smiting naysayers on Earth. In both cases one must go to all manner of nonsense to explain things that we see around us. If little green men (or, I guess, 7 foot tall cone-headed beings) blended with monkeys or whatever to advance homo sapiens, then how is it the DNA in us is the same as in everything from plants to bacteria? If the entire world were created out of thin air 5800 years ago, 'splain to me how rocks as old as 3 billion years have been discovered - using dating methods that are the same that enabled engineers to build nuclear power plants? The point is - both are lovely myths and stories with which many comfort themselves, but have no bearing on reality. As Lorre makes the point above in his vanity card - repeat some blithering nonsense often enough over the enturies and surely some set of folks will come to believe it's true and eventually worship it.

Glenn Harve

You mis the point, and yet you exemplify my point.

Ps. I have degrees in electronics, physics and biochem. I am well aware of scientific doctrine, and of it fervor.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Golly, I don't know how I missed your point -

Golly, I'm not sure how I missed your point ('miss' has two s's by the way) when you point out many theories have been replaced with more accurate theories, yet scientists don't have the hubris to state unequivocally that the latest one is the 'final answer' - that's what I stated.

As for knowing about man's history - not sure what you think you mean...since the first homo walked on two legs? Since the invention of agriculture? (oh, wait, that was 10,000 years ago, before god created the earth)

There is no question but that the human brain is wired to want to seek a higher explanation, as well as it is wired for tribal thinking...thus all the destruction done in the name of religion ("my religious beliefs are more better than yours you peasant!!). But that don't make it right in any way. Again, they are nice stories with moral rules (do unto others, etc.) that are important. As an astute scientist, surely you are aware of the prevailing theory (oops - there's that word again) that organized religion was the result of the invention of agriculture, which changed the way humans lived.

Prior to agriculture, hunter/gatherer tribes didn't grow beyond 150 members or so - if one got too big it would split. That way, all members were aware of everyone else's activities, which in itself assured them that people would behave. But when things changed with farming, such that people had to stay in the same area for the crops, towns and cities soon grew to have far more people than any one member could personally keep track of, meaning some would be tempted to do bad things and hope to get away with it (something far less possible in a tribe of 100 members). Enter religion - with rules for living right and threats to those who break the rules.

That's the history of man.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

Here's the difference between religion and science: religion is based on faith and science is based on evidence.

Religion says, "Here is Truth: Believe it."

Science says, "Here is what we think is going on."

Implicit in science is the notion that you might well be wrong. Richard Feinman once said that it isn't about what could be true, but what is probably true.

Science is backed by evidence, religion by tradition. When a scientist comes up with a theory, other scientists can look at his or her evidence and decide if it makes sense, and other scientists can try to get the same results by repeating the experiment independently. Scientists take great glee in pointing out the flaws in other scientists' experiments and theories. A theory does not try to say what is True. Instead it says this explains the facts we have to the best of our abilities. Other facts may come along tomorrow, or someone with new insight, and blow the theory out of the water.

The fact that science has discarded a great many theories is not a flaw. That's how it's supposed to work. It's self correcting.

Another poster opined, based on religion, that Earth is the only inhabited planet, and the rest of the universe exists to give us signs and portents. (Forgive me if I misrepresent.) That's a valid opinion, and you have every right to believe it. A scientist's reaction to such a statement is, "How can we test it? How does this square with what we know?" If it's a tenet of faith, there's no need to check it.

We know there are a hundred million to four hundred million stars in our galaxy. We know most of them have planets. There are billions of galaxies in the observable universe. The odds that we are the only world with life seems improbable, but that doesn't make it impossible. To a scientist, the only way we'll know is to look.

Glenn Harve

In all of science, nothing even comes close to understanding the essence of life, or the soul, if you will. The moment one dies, all of their cells are still alive, but the "essence" that drives them is gone. Then they follow suit, and die.
Some people have had experiences of the type that science cannot begin to explain. For those, things change, forever. Those who not had such experiences cannot understand what that means. Often they cling instead and steadfast to sciences that are destined to change, ironically, by knowledge.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

You aren't referring to the Christian religion with that description; Christianity is based on evidence, not wishful thinking or some "blind" faith.



Certainly, but that doesn't mean there is some lack of evidence for the Christian faith.



For the most part, but science is done by men, and men are flawed and biased and aren't neutral.



And yet, what is stated here in this thread by those who's religion is science is stated as fact and clung to as fact. Go figure.



Actually wrong.

Science is a discipline that is done by humans. We all have the same evidence yet the CONCLUSIONS we come to are wildly differing based on our bias' and presuppositions. Evidence is evaluated based on things we already think are true. Our presuppositions DETERMINE the conclusions we draw about the evidence we have.



That would be the idea for sure but it certainly doesn't always work that way. Many times theories are accepted based on who comes up with them and who agrees.



And yet...someone on this thread will say "science says..." as if it were true.

The fact is; if you don't know something to be true for sure...then you don't know it to be true.



That's the idea anyway.



How do I know? The ONLY eyewitness said so...God. He's the only one who was there at the beginning and now that you've made it clear that you cannot know based on science, I guess that is that.



Except that of course you've already conceded that you can't know that so I'll let the eyewitness to creation be the last word.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

The point is that science is about what we can say about the world we find ourselves in, given the evidence that we can collect. Yes, it's a human endeavor, subject to all the flaws to which humans are prone. In the long run, those foibles are exposed. The self-correction may not happen as quickly as any of us would like, but it will come.

The problem with taking God's word on it, is that God's word is only available to us through human intermediaries, and therefore subject to the same human foibles that science is. Unlike science, there is no built-in correction if the human intermediary gets it wrong or falls prey to the sins we are all subject to. As a result, there are myriad religions on the planet, many of which contradict each other. How does a person know the one he or she favors is the true one, and all the others mistaken in some fashion? The usual answer I get to this question is faith. The believer believes. Unfortunately, the believers of all the other religions believe too, so the answer begs the question.

If the universe was created by God, and that's certainly possible, then His mind is written in the fabric of creation. We may never be able to understand that creation in its fullest, but science provides us a tool by which we can get closer to understanding it.

jgm

I appreciate you interjecting a bit of rational, logical thought into a thread full of metaphysical claptrap.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Alas, your interpretation of what science (and the scientific method) is is utterly incorrect, as demonstrated by this quote.

The purpose of a scientific theory is to predict an outcome of some sort - "if I throw a baseball this fast in that direction how far will it go?" Various theories may be offered, but the one that answers the question most precisely is the one that is deemed correct. There is no opinion involved. And if at a future time a new theory is proffered that answers the question more precisely, it will replace the previously held theory. Certainly there are individuals who insist that the new theory is wrong because of such and such, but in the end the predictive value is what counts.

So please, tell us how the earth is flat and all the animals were planted ever so cleverly such that mere mortals would find them buried in a certain order of layers with carbon radio dating showing them to be arranged in a temporal order thanks to the big guy.

There is a myth in modern western culture that everyone is allowed to have an opinion - but that is not true. If you believe the night sky is actually a navy blue blanket with holes punched in it making the pinpoints of light we call stars shine through, then your thoughts and opinions on traveling to Mars are of zero value.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

And thus it's limited in the types of things it can answer; they must be testable, and repeatable.



Or at all.



That's where you are wrong. God's word was written down just as He wanted it to be recorded. God cannot lie nor can He make a mistake. He's the only eye witness, that's good evidence.



Wrong again. Because God is not human and the inscription of His word wasn't based on what a human could do with all his faults, it's not the same. God is perfectly capable of having those who wrote His word down to write exactly what He intended.



Yes...but I'll say...so?

There are counterfeit dollars in circulation...,does that mean real dollars don't exist?

That's sloppy reasoning for sure.

And of course, you can't possibly know that the God of the bible isn't who He says He is because you already explained to me how fallible human reason is.





The same way you do. You and I both know (and all of those in other religions or lack of religion's too) know that the God of the bible is the true and living God and that He exists. Oh for sure, you won't admit it..maybe even to yourself, but you know just like I do. Every man will be judged by God and I sincerely hope that before your time comes you repent and believe the good news rather than getting your just punishment.

[/quote]If the universe was created by God, and that's certainly possible, then His mind is written in the fabric of creation. We may never be able to understand that creation in its fullest, but science provides us a tool by which we can get closer to understanding it.[/quote]


It was. It's not just possible, it's certain. I do agree though that science (when it agrees with the Creator who cannot lie) can help us understand God's creation more and really appreciate it.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Nope. "Science" is a discipline. It cannot do anything, MEN do science and THEY are the ones who come to conclusions. They have their bias' also...and those bias' determine their conclusions.

For example, here is a good quote by An atheist illustrating the point;

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

~ Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.



See quote above.




Ahh...insults...the last resort of the man without an argument.



I actually agree with this. Most folks I meet (this group included) can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag and think that insults and assertions make a sound argument. Most couldn't pass a first year philosophy course.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Bzzzz! Golly, thanks for playing, but this really shows a certain amount of ignorance (because even scientists aren't always great thinkers when it comes to areas outside their discipline). He is likely referring to relativity theory or quantum theory, both of which lead to conclusions that are almost impossible to imagine. Yet the inability to understand does not negate the fact that these theories make very precise predictions about actual events that actually occur. Again, GPS systems take into account relativity time dilation in the calculations due to the motion of the satellites - does your GPS not get you where you want to go? Had mankind not been inquisitive and eventually discovered those aspects of reality, GPS simply wouldn't work.

So regardless of the fact your (or my) puny human mind cannot intuit it or understand it - it actually works.

That said, tell us all the times prayers have actually helped those to whom they were directed. Or, literally, any other example where religion (not just an Abrahamic religion, but any religion) has performed any kind of prediction accurately. Because that is the purpose of scientific inquiry. How many prayers, for instance, were made in hopes of eliminating terrible disease - yet how many diseases were spontaneously cured? Hell, if that were to happen, then the world would have to seriously reconsider the reality of an omnipotent god. Never mind the more obvious low hanging fruit like how it is that "men of god" sexually abuse little boys....oh, wait - tell us that those priests et al don't represent true god and religion so they don't count. I say to you - Lewontin doesn't represent all scientists or scientific thought.