|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 5, 2020 2:00:19 GMT
There's no false choice between faith and science.
The two are in different realms.
Like being a great singer and electromagnetism.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Jul 5, 2020 2:11:43 GMT
There's no false choice between faith and science. The two are in different realms.
Like being a great singer and electromagnetism. and in no way in conflict. |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Jul 5, 2020 2:17:41 GMT
There's no false choice between faith and science. The two are in different realms.
Like being a great singer and electromagnetism. and in no way in conflict. Oooh... Hmmm.... It's bedtime here. TBC. Very glad to see you and your shotgun. Which is a long range hunting weapon by the way. True. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,958
|
Post by petep on Jul 5, 2020 23:26:29 GMT
What do you think is going to happen after decades of the scientists getting things wrong time after time and publicly lying about it? This isn't a conversation about Evangelicals. It's a conversation about the struggles of our time. The collapse of the credibility of experts and their machinations to hold onto the power and authority slipping away from them. Queshank The scientists at the cdc told us we do not even have to test for covid. You simply need to observe anybine of 10 plus symptoms. Read the symptoms. Pretty much anyone and everyone who has any sickness exhibits one or several of these Oh, and you get money if you list it as covid Yes, science. No test required. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 0:15:59 GMT
Okay yeah. He's a twit. I tried Mercy. I tried. But this doesn't confirm my biases so it doesn't just go down smoothly.
This is the painfully foreseeable outcome of internalizing a false choice between faith and science.
That applies at least as much to the Richard Dawkinses of the world. And probably more. As they commercialized and exported skepticism as a commodity for the layman. (I'm not lumping him in there. He argues in defense of theism. Guess he's as interested in eating his own as most leftists are these days. What could go wrong?)
And then he segues into conversations about climate change and the pandemic to "prove" his point. Two scientific studies that are rampant with mistakes, errors, opinions , bias and legitimate questions about policy decisions being pushed using that same murky and questionable science as the justification.
You have probably seen me point out the similarity between the modeling for the pandemic ... and the modeling for climate science. And you've seen me predict climate science will suffer because of the abuses of "experts" during this pandemic. Here it is again in case you missed it on facebook  Queshank
He's not making the argument that "some people that are suspicious of science are evangelicals." The argument is that evangelicals have drawn a line of suspicion in the sand against science...and this began over a hundred years ago. As much as the Scopes trial has been exaggerated and misrepresented, this really is a thing. I grew up indoctrinated with Young Earth Creationism...and underlying all the justifications an arguments is a conspiracy theory that scientists are deliberately misinterpreting and falsifying data to turn people in atheists--because they hate God or something. |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,958
|
Post by petep on Jul 6, 2020 0:36:43 GMT
Heck. Even Einstein said he was not an atheist but an agnostic. I’d consider him a pretty good science guy.
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Jul 6, 2020 0:37:37 GMT
What do you think is going to happen after decades of the scientists getting things wrong time after time and publicly lying about it? This isn't a conversation about Evangelicals. It's a conversation about the struggles of our time. The collapse of the credibility of experts and their machinations to hold onto the power and authority slipping away from them. Queshank The scientists at the cdc told us we do not even have to test for covid. You simply need to observe anybine of 10 plus symptoms. Read the symptoms. Pretty much anyone and everyone who has any sickness exhibits one or several of these Oh, and you get money if you list it as covid Yes, science. No test required.
You didn't back up that claim.
Probably because you know you can't.
The list of symptoms is simply a list of symptoms that those that get covid-19 MAY exhibit. It's not intended as a list of things that PROVE one has contracted covid-19. It could be a help in diagnosis, though, since Trump fucked up the nations' ability to test everyone for Covid-19. The only credible proof so far would be a swab of the nose/throat that shows viral RNA.
Nice try in your special nihilist sort of way.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 13:37:05 GMT
You seem to misunderstand what science is. Science is the study of the physical world. As a collective, it can neither be called right nor wrong, only the cumulative knowledge it possesses at that moment in time.
So 'scientists getting things wrong' is normal and good. Science corrects itself, because other scientists constantly test it, looking for errors.
The opposite would be religion, which says how things are, and only incredibly slowly adapts to new situations (often in a negative way).
There is no better system for understanding our world than science. Your writing to me in this forum right now is testament to how science enables your first amendment rights. How does religion help with that?
Those who choose to ignore science do so at their own peril, though with COVID, they also imperil others.
Freon
There is no better system for understand our physical world than science. If "science" (or...the technology that arises from the application of science?) facilitates the expression of first amendment rights, it has absolutely nothing to say about whether those rights exist or not. Who said science has anything to do with expression of rights? I never did. Science is the exact opposite of History. History records what did happen, and science predicts what will happen. Both are useful for making policy, but neither define it. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 13:42:29 GMT
Heck. Even Einstein said he was not an atheist but an agnostic. I’d consider him a pretty good science guy. You are wrong. Einstein was WAY too intelligent to be agnostic. www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/philosophy/did-albert-einstein-believe-in-godAgnosticism is a cop-out, a justification for not believing, disguised as a middle ground to those smart enough to not be duped by religion, but not smart enough to be enlightened. Freon |
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 25,958
|
Post by petep on Jul 6, 2020 13:50:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 14:40:00 GMT
Einstein was one of those very few individuals who recognized a basic scientific truth:
Our brains did not evolve to help us solve mathematical equations and discover the origins of the universe.
They evolved to help us survive.
The scientific measurements about boiling points and heat do not matter to our brain. Our brain only needs to know that when we touch the flame, we get hurt. And the only thing it's designed to "learn" is not to do it again. Queshank
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 14:57:47 GMT
Okay yeah. He's a twit. I tried Mercy. I tried. But this doesn't confirm my biases so it doesn't just go down smoothly.
This is the painfully foreseeable outcome of internalizing a false choice between faith and science.
That applies at least as much to the Richard Dawkinses of the world. And probably more. As they commercialized and exported skepticism as a commodity for the layman. (I'm not lumping him in there. He argues in defense of theism. Guess he's as interested in eating his own as most leftists are these days. What could go wrong?)
And then he segues into conversations about climate change and the pandemic to "prove" his point. Two scientific studies that are rampant with mistakes, errors, opinions , bias and legitimate questions about policy decisions being pushed using that same murky and questionable science as the justification.
You have probably seen me point out the similarity between the modeling for the pandemic ... and the modeling for climate science. And you've seen me predict climate science will suffer because of the abuses of "experts" during this pandemic. Here it is again in case you missed it on facebook Queshank
He's not making the argument that "some people that are suspicious of science are evangelicals." The argument is that evangelicals have drawn a line of suspicion in the sand against science...and this began over a hundred years ago. As much as the Scopes trial has been exaggerated and misrepresented, this really is a thing. I grew up indoctrinated with Young Earth Creationism...and underlying all the justifications an arguments is a conspiracy theory that scientists are deliberately misinterpreting and falsifying data to turn people in atheists--because they hate God or something.
Look, there's nothing I enjoy more than taking a dump on religious fundamentalists. For a good portion of my life, it was one of my favorite things to do. Under normal circumstances, it still would be.
But what's the point besides "otherizing" and scapegoating? He is talking about ... what... 20% of the American population. And it's certainly not the most anti science segment of society in the anti science framework he's discussing. Look at those of us on the boards (like myself) who have openly stated they think people who "believe" in the utterances of scientists that masks are necessary right now are idiots. How many posting here on that issue are religious fundamentalists? Which "science denying" atheist who has two thumbs are we talking about now?
What we are learning right now in real time is that drawing a line of suspicion in the sand against "science" is a very, very healthy and logical thing to do. So long as scientISTS continue to blur the lines between science and the opinions of scientists. Which is what every one of my YEC friends is constantly going on about. Not "science." But the interpretations of that science by fallible men. And I would argue that guys like Dawkins exemplify that very quality. And then I would probably double down and start a discussion about whether or not we as a society are truly better off because of how the Scopes trial turned out.
As Limey said ... and Dr. Ben Carson said before him ... it's ridiculous to separate science and "faith." Science is data. Our worldview and philosophy is how we interpret said data. There's no divorcing the two. And btw ... Dr. Ben Carson is considered by most to be a "religious fundamentalist" (7th Day Adventist who believes the US plays a role in the coming apocalypse) and simultaneously is one of the most respected and accomplished brain surgeons in history. Methinks Scott Cooley is cherry picking based on his prejudices.
Do you remember a number of years ago when you and I had a conversation about how repulsed I was by atheists who think they've become atheists because of "science?" I would argue these repellent little manturds have a worse understanding of "science" than religious fundamentalists do. They've turned science into a religion. They've replaced their worship of a "God" with worshipping a tool. Which is dumber? Denying science? Or worshiping it as infallible and turning its advocates into priests?
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:12:47 GMT
Who said science has anything to do with expression of rights? I never did. Science is the exact opposite of History. History records what did happen, and science predicts what will happen. Both are useful for making policy, but neither define it. Freon I like that thought. I might steal it. But at a certain point, science and history do overlap. For example, scientists can make predictions about what we might expect to find as evidence to support models describing what happened in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:15:51 GMT
Look, there's nothing I enjoy more than taking a dump on religious fundamentalists. For a good portion of my life, it was one of my favorite things to do. Under normal circumstances, it still would be.
But what's the point besides "otherizing" and scapegoating? He is talking about ... what... 20% of the American population...
But arguably, he's doing it from "the inside," which is a bit of a different thing...
Do you remember a number of years ago when you and I had a conversation about how repulsed I was by atheists who think they've become atheists because of "science?" I would argue these repellent little manturds have a worse understanding of "science" than religious fundamentalists do. They've turned science into a religion. They've replaced their worship of a "God" with worshipping a tool. Which is dumber? Denying science? Or worshiping it as infallible and turning its advocates into priests?
Yes, that happens. To me, it's frustrating to see people having "that conversation" and talking past each other (e.g., the Ken Ham vs. Bill Nye "debate," which was almost exactly that). There are "better conversations."
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:17:22 GMT
More specifically, Einstein likely would have aligned with someone like Spinoza; all of the universe (especially what we do not understand) is "God." Not so much pantheism as panentheism...but certainly depersonalized. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:19:14 GMT
Einstein was one of those very few individuals who recognized a basic scientific truth:
Our brains did not evolve to help us solve mathematical equations and discover the origins of the universe.
They evolved to help us survive.
The scientific measurements about boiling points and heat do not matter to our brain. Our brain only needs to know that when we touch the flame, we get hurt. And the only thing it's designed to "learn" is not to do it again. Queshank
Catholic philosopher Alvin Plantinga uses that general concept to build a case that evolution is "a proof" (not "proof") for the existence of God. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2020 15:34:37 GMT
Who said science has anything to do with expression of rights? I never did. Science is the exact opposite of History. History records what did happen, and science predicts what will happen. Both are useful for making policy, but neither define it. Freon I like that thought. I might steal it. But at a certain point, science and history do overlap. For example, scientists can make predictions about what we might expect to find as evidence to support models describing what happened in the past.
What exactly do you like in the somewhat batshit crazy idea that science is capable of predicting the future?
Quehank
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jul 6, 2020 15:40:14 GMT
I like that thought. I might steal it. But at a certain point, science and history do overlap. For example, scientists can make predictions about what we might expect to find as evidence to support models describing what happened in the past.
What exactly do you like in the somewhat batshit crazy idea that science is capable of predicting the future?
Quehank
That's what scientific models do. That's what experimentation is. If we "do this," we "expect to see that." If we see what we expected to see, our prediction is correct and our model is more or less verified. These aren't "grand predictions of the future" (at the very least, chaos theory and all that), but..."if you take aspirin, your headache is likely to go away." That's a prediction of the future (as opposed to history, which documents, interprets, and explains what happened in the past). |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 15:41:14 GMT
Who said science has anything to do with expression of rights? I never did. Science is the exact opposite of History. History records what did happen, and science predicts what will happen. Both are useful for making policy, but neither define it. Freon I like that thought. I might steal it. But at a certain point, science and history do overlap. For example, scientists can make predictions about what we might expect to find as evidence to support models describing what happened in the past. That is a valid point, but only for physical phenomena. I want to be careful, and respectful, of areas where there seems to be overlap, but in my opinion, really should be none. Creation being the most notable example. The concept of creation is not a scientific one, so science should not be used to try to explain, prove, or disprove it. Conversely, concepts like good and bad, and a soul, are not physical, so also are inappropriate to discuss with any type of scientific bent. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jul 6, 2020 15:44:57 GMT
]More specifically, Einstein likely would have aligned with someone like Spinoza; all of the universe (especially what we do not understand) is "God." Not so much pantheism as panentheism...but certainly depersonalized. I did not have a name for it, but this is my belief as well. All things in the universe are ultimately composed of the products of exploding stars. Humans, therefore, are composed of the universe itself. We ARE the universe, and we are somewhat unique in that we are conscious of our existence, and curious about the universe we live in. That makes Humans, the Universe trying to understand itself. I can think of no greater calling than that. Freon |
|
