Sciencemadness Discussion Board
Not logged in [Login - Register]
Go To Bottom

Printable Version  
 Pages:  1    3    5  ..  8
Author: Subject: Religion thought as science
BromicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2873
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline

Mood: Anxious

[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 17:48


Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do you think about doing a controlled experiment to see if prayer actually works?


It has already been done. One of the kings of England (a George, I think)
was deathly ill. 200,000 people prayed that he would get well. He didn't, he died.


Obviously more people were praying that he die. Unless it's like an electoral college thing.




Shamelessly plugging my attempts at writing fiction: http://www.robvincent.org
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Vosoryx
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 136
Registered: 18-6-2017
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 18:04


Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
That's not a controlled experiment, though... a controlled experiment would be something like assigning cancer patients to "prayer" and "no prayer" groups and praying for one group to see how prayer affects the outcomes.


It's been done, just with heart bypass patients instead, in a well respected peer-reviewed scientific paper with a control.

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(05)00649-6/fulltext

Perhaps someone has the full copy somewhere for us?

The new york times did a story on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Vosoryx
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 136
Registered: 18-6-2017
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 18:53


Quote: Originally posted by ELRIC  

...I find it strange that some scientist can look at a DNA helix and not see intelligent creation...


I don't. The discovery of it, heck yeah that's intelligent.
I personally have no problem believing that DNA and all the wondrous things that make it work, such as transcription, translation, RNA, etc. have come about via evolution.

Most of my following points have been taken from Peter Hadfield's "Potholer54" channel. (Specifically his "origin of life made easy" video)

Given enough time, enough chemicals will come together to form the required DNA. For example, adenine, one of the four nitrogenous bases, was synthesized in 1960 by leaving HCN and NH3 in an aqueous solution together.
Phosphates are common minerals, and thus it's not a hard step to get that PO4 will come into the equation given enough time.
As for the ribose, biologist's (AFAIK) don't yet know how that was incorporated in, but I have no problem believing that it was, given the 3.7 billion years it's had.
Once you have multiple nucleotides, they need to be joined together. Fortunately, a certain type of clay that was very common is a great catalyst for this.
Once there is a chain of them, there's RNA. This is the simplest form of self-replicating molecule.
Sometimes, it didn't replicate itself perfectly, producing mutations.
There were other chemicals in the area too, specifically lipids. These hydrocarbons, what we now call "fat", had a tendency to group together. The RNA, once it found itself inside the fat cells, was protected, and thus survived better. This is the first form of primitive cell.
Mutations and other outside chemicals interfered, and the RNA was replicated, uracil was replaced with a close chemical cousin thymine, flipped backwards and attached onto itself, producing DNA.
Amino acids have been formed from other simple building blocks that would have been found at the time, and these would combine to make proteins. In fact, scientific studies have shown that the same clay that catalyzed the creation of the RNA chain have also been used to produce amino acids.
In this time, other things would have been made. For example, a little packet of chemicals that can turn CO2 and sunlight into O2 and glucose. Some of the "Cells" would have met up, and a relationship was formed. The little packets that made O2 would be protected, and the "Cell" would get the excess O2.

Here's my explanation of how DNA was formed. It requires no "God", but perhaps my explanation is wrong?

Finally - I don't hold this against anyone who doesn't share my belief system, especially not in an AMATEUR CHEMISTRY forum. We all agree on one thing here, and that's about our love for chemistry and all it can do. (Energetics, experiments, knowledge, mind-altering substances, fun, etc.)

And, it seems most of us, regardless of faith, agree that it's amazing this hasn't been detritus-ized yet! Have we broken the code? We are engaging in a discussion about religion on the internet, and it's not a shit throwing match yet! No-one has told anyone else to "Fuck off". I've never seen this before!
View user's profile View All Posts By User
BromicAcid
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2873
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline

Mood: Anxious

[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 19:33


Please remember what the context in which the OP created this thread. This is not a discussion or debate on whether or not god exists but about a video showing... well, I never even watched the video and the subject was dropped in the first page of discussion.

Strictly speaking there have been plenty of studies showing positive impacts on longevity, quality of life, and overall health for those who identify as religious. There are different positive externalities for those who identify as atheist as pointed out by the studies thus far completed. From a scientific point of view one should toss away their beliefs and the weight they add to either argument and determine if they believe in god based on the any basket of benefits it might bring based on scientific study.




Shamelessly plugging my attempts at writing fiction: http://www.robvincent.org
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5595
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 19:46


Quote: Originally posted by Vosoryx  

And, it seems most of us, regardless of faith, agree that it's amazing this hasn't been detritus-ized yet! Have we broken the code? We are engaging in a discussion about religion on the internet, and it's not a shit throwing match yet! No-one has told anyone else to "Fuck off". I've never seen this before!


I think this is happening because the usual disrupters are not here. You know who they are.

Evolution works because of the huge amount of time (3.7 billion years) available for the trial and error process that must take place. Some simple evolutions take place in our life time. These are due to random DNA mutations caused by cosmic rays or are color changes due a need to match the environment to avoid getting eaten.

One natural mechanism that amazes me is a certain feature in a biological system that includes a bearing to provide full and continuous rotation. I can't remember where this is found.

Perhaps you have heard of the eminent physicist who was the former president of Gonzaga University (Catholic). He explained that for the universe to exist as we know it 14 scientific parameters, such as the gravitational constant, Plank's constant, certain atomic radii, etc, must be within narrow ranges. This had me stumped until I learned about multiverses.




The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2639
Registered: 15-10-2015
Location: the nitrate nodule (aka the batcave)
Member Is Offline

Mood: phosphorus

[*] posted on 9-1-2018 at 22:02


Quote: Originally posted by BromicAcid  
Quote: Originally posted by Magpie  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do you think about doing a controlled experiment to see if prayer actually works?


It has already been done. One of the kings of England (a George, I think)
was deathly ill. 200,000 people prayed that he would get well. He didn't, he died.


Obviously more people were praying that he die. Unless it's like an electoral college thing.



PBF271-Spelling.png - 203kB




View user's profile View All Posts By User
ELRIC
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 177
Registered: 23-2-2015
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 04:13


Quote: Originally posted by Vosoryx  
Quote: Originally posted by ELRIC  

...I find it strange that some scientist can look at a DNA helix and not see intelligent creation...


I don't. The discovery of it, heck yeah that's intelligent.
I personally have no problem believing that DNA and all the wondrous things that make it work, such as transcription, translation, RNA, etc. have come about via evolution.

Most of my following points have been taken from Peter Hadfield's "Potholer54" channel. (Specifically his "origin of life made easy" video)

Given enough time, enough chemicals will come together to form the required DNA. For example, adenine, one of the four nitrogenous bases, was synthesized in 1960 by leaving HCN and NH3 in an aqueous solution together.
Phosphates are common minerals, and thus it's not a hard step to get that PO4 will come into the equation given enough time.
As for the ribose, biologist's (AFAIK) don't yet know how that was incorporated in, but I have no problem believing that it was, given the 3.7 billion years it's had.
Once you have multiple nucleotides, they need to be joined together. Fortunately, a certain type of clay that was very common is a great catalyst for this.
Once there is a chain of them, there's RNA. This is the simplest form of self-replicating molecule.
Sometimes, it didn't replicate itself perfectly, producing mutations.
There were other chemicals in the area too, specifically lipids. These hydrocarbons, what we now call "fat", had a tendency to group together. The RNA, once it found itself inside the fat cells, was protected, and thus survived better. This is the first form of primitive cell.
Mutations and other outside chemicals interfered, and the RNA was replicated, uracil was replaced with a close chemical cousin thymine, flipped backwards and attached onto itself, producing DNA.
Amino acids have been formed from other simple building blocks that would have been found at the time, and these would combine to make proteins. In fact, scientific studies have shown that the same clay that catalyzed the creation of the RNA chain have also been used to produce amino acids.
In this time, other things would have been made. For example, a little packet of chemicals that can turn CO2 and sunlight into O2 and glucose. Some of the "Cells" would have met up, and a relationship was formed. The little packets that made O2 would be protected, and the "Cell" would get the excess O2.

Here's my explanation of how DNA was formed. It requires no "God", but perhaps my explanation is wrong?

Finally - I don't hold this against anyone who doesn't share my belief system, especially not in an AMATEUR CHEMISTRY forum. We all agree on one thing here, and that's about our love for chemistry and all it can do. (Energetics, experiments, knowledge, mind-altering substances, fun, etc.)

And, it seems most of us, regardless of faith, agree that it's amazing this hasn't been detritus-ized yet! Have we broken the code? We are engaging in a discussion about religion on the internet, and it's not a shit throwing match yet! No-one has told anyone else to "Fuck off". I've never seen this before!


I share you’re sentiment about detritus. I’m amazed that this thread hasn’t

been shit-canned. I’m glad everyone has been civilized, although at the time of

my writing this it appears I have a few more posts to read.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3404
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 04:20


Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do you think about doing a controlled experiment to see if prayer actually works?

The God squad have a cop-out answer for that.

http://biblehub.com/luke/4-12.htm
"Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'""

So, if prayer was shown to work they would say "I told you so" and if it didn't work they would say..."I told you so".

Obviously the power of prayer is tested on a regular basis.
Every time a storm heads towards a populated area, people in that area are generally warned by stuff like satellite maps and at least some of those people will resort to prayer.
Success rates so far are consistently zero.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
DrP
National Hazard
****




Posts: 413
Registered: 28-9-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: exothermic

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 04:33


Quote: Originally posted by unionised  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do you think about doing a controlled experiment to see if prayer actually works?

The God squad have a cop-out answer for that.

http://biblehub.com/luke/4-12.htm
"Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'""

So, if prayer was shown to work they would say "I told you so" and if it didn't work they would say..."I told you so".

Obviously the power of prayer is tested on a regular basis.
Every time a storm heads towards a populated area, people in that area are generally warned by stuff like satellite maps and at least some of those people will resort to prayer.
Success rates so far are consistently zero.


I think you might see a placebo effect in action if praying for healing (and the people actually knew they were being prayed for). But praying to influence nature?....

I remember being taught that the forecast for the night around the time of Dunkirk was stormy, but thousands prayed for calm seas for the evacuation. In reality, I haven't actually checked the forecast for the date - I just accepted it was supposed to have been stormy and they prayed for calm. Even so - it isn't impossible for a storm to be predicted and it not turn up, or more famously as in the UK 1987 hurricane, for a forecaster to deny any possibility of a hurricane event, only for one to hit hours later. lol.

As far as I am aware there have been no positive reports of success of controlled experiments ever suggesting prayer works beyond a placebo. Which of course means that statistically it WILL seem to work a few times when an event happens that was going to happen anyway.




\"It\'s a man\'s obligation to stick his boneration in a women\'s separation; this sort of penetration will increase the population of the younger generation\" - Eric Cartman
View user's profile View All Posts By User
unionised
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3404
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 05:12


Weather forecasting in 1940 wasn't up to much and, of course, the Germans were praying for victory just as much as the English.
I was thinking of things like the storm that hit Puerto Rico even though a lot of people on that island are Christians (89% according to WIKI) who would be praying fervently for the forecast to be wrong.
It wasn't.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
MrHomeScientist
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1432
Registered: 24-10-2010
Location: Flerovium
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 09:20


Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist  
However, they, I, and many others have indeed seen God back up the fact that Christ indeed was raised from the dead.

How?
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
vmelkon
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 582
Registered: 25-11-2011
Location: Canada
Member Is Offline

Mood: autoerotic asphyxiation

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 09:39


Quote: Originally posted by ELRIC  
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
If God is all-knowing, does he still have free will? Or is he a prisoner of his knowledge?


If God doesn’t have free will, how could He have ever emparted it to you?

Another question. Call me a simpleton, but can knowledge enslave anyone?

( except maybe all the classified stuff. And I don’t really see that being enslavement).
[Edited on 9-1-2018 by ELRIC]

[Edited on 10-1-2018 by ELRIC]


I think that you don't know what free will is and neither does anyone else including me.

If you know what free will is, explain it to me.




Signature ==== Is this my youtube page? https://plus.google.com/u/0/102731756100318541546/videos?tab...
We must attach the electrodes of knowledge to the nipples of ignorance and give a few good jolts.
Yes my evolutionary friends. We are all homos here.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
JJay
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 2639
Registered: 15-10-2015
Location: the nitrate nodule (aka the batcave)
Member Is Offline

Mood: phosphorus

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 10:20


Why would I do that, though?



View user's profile View All Posts By User
ELRIC
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 177
Registered: 23-2-2015
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 11:37


Earlier up thread I mentioned that I would provide some reference of there being

“scientific fact” in the Bible. So I figured, why not?

People used to think the world was flat ( some still do).

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40:22‬ ‭

The word circle is generally accepted to mean spherical in this contex.

King Solomon described a cycle of air currents 2000 years before scientists “discovered”
them.

“The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”
‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Here’s one that very well could hint to atoms and molecules:

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

People used to think that the earth sat on a large animal or a giants back around 1500 BC

Here’s what the Bible has to say about it:

“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
‭‭Job‬ ‭26:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

I think that last one peeked Sir Isaac Newton’s interest. I can prolly find more, but I’m

not so sure if I should keep going. I’ve got that “led blimp” feeling about the reception

of my post.


[Edited on 10-1-2018 by ELRIC]

[Edited on 10-1-2018 by ELRIC]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
wg48
National Hazard
****




Posts: 495
Registered: 21-11-2015
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 12:21


Quote: Originally posted by Vosoryx  

And, it seems most of us, regardless of faith, agree that it's amazing this hasn't been detritus-ized yet! Have we broken the code? We are engaging in a discussion about religion on the internet, and it's not a shit throwing match yet! No-one has told anyone else to "Fuck off". I've never seen this before!


I am gob smacked too. It’s as hard to believe as the spontaneous creation of life (DNA eyeballs and fungi controlled ants to mention just a few hard to believe things about life forms)

I have a lot of sympathy for the intelligent design view there are just so many how the heck did that evolve things. But it’s like magic tricks if you don’t know how the trick is performed it does seem like real magic. Though we don’t know all the hows of the evolution of life we do know a lot about recent evolution from fossils and computer simulation suggest vision (eyeballs) was quick relative to the time available.

Recently reading about the stability of permanganates, apparently manganese dioxide catalysis the decomposition of permanganate to produce more dioxide. Its in effect a primitive life form. There are many other self-catalysed reactions too. So its not so difficult for me to believe some organic compound catalysed its own creation. Add evolution, time and the right condition and here we are with brains. Brains that evolved to reproduce our genes and just happen to be supper computers that remarkable can contemplate our own evolutionary history and even the history of the universe. Perhaps no more remarkable that this civil discord LOL.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Fulmen
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 941
Registered: 24-9-2005
Member Is Offline

Mood: Bored

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 12:26


The way I see it it just doesn't work.
It's actually not a bad worldview if the alternative is "I don't frackin' know!". If the world is a complete mystery you might as well hope there is some guy in charge. And if so, trying to barter for increased quality of life seems like a smart thing to try.

But it just doesn't work very well. Compared to the scientific method, how much useful knowledge has religion provided? Things that actually improves our life? I'm thinking philosophy, engineering, medical sciences and everything else that improves our lives. Not much.

Sure we can debate it's role in inspiring things like art and philosophy, but they do claim so much more, claims that simply doesn't fit any observation or test.

Besides, what if one of the many mutually exclusive religions did get it right? How do we find the right one? They can't all be equally right, can they? Even those that believe in the same basic concepts and holy books can't agree among themselves how to interpret anything. Religion hasn't even managed to define it's core concept, "God" itself. It's always defined as something that defies definition.





We're not banging rocks together here. We know how to put a man back together.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 237
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 14:08


Quoting pseudo science from the bible and using a sort of urban myth about primitive knowledge to reinforce the biblical account is self serving and disingenuous. For one, the Sumerian knowledge about the solar system seems far more advanced than biblical era knowledge and it predates it by thousands of years. They have a pretty credible history of representing the sun surrounded by the appropriate number of satellites for a start.

Only some parts of historical society thought the world was flat and the myth about fears that Columbus would sail off the edge of the world is one of those apocryphal tales that have little merit in reality. Most sea faring nations had worked out that the top of sails appear above the horizon before the rest of the ship appears and had inferred the spherical nature of the globe even though this might not be widespread knowledge in the community. Education was pretty much on a need to know basis up until only recent times. Eratosthenes in about 300BC used a well and a neighbouring one in Syrene to calculate the earths' diameter. That knowledge didn't exactly get rapidly spread across the globe.

When the vast map of human knowledge spreads out over time and cultures to paint a varied picture of both primitive and advanced capabilities throughout history, and then this gets ignored by the bible types who just quote a few random, barely interpretable stanzas out of context from 'one' book, again and again, you loose all credibility as an authority. '“scientific fact” in the Bible' has very little merit and trying to splice science and the bible together has a distasteful Island of Dr Moreau-ish abomination about it.


[Edited on 10-1-2018 by Chemetix]
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ELRIC
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 177
Registered: 23-2-2015
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 15:27


Quote: Originally posted by Chemetix  
Quoting pseudo science from the bible and using a sort of urban myth about primitive knowledge to reinforce the biblical account is self serving and disingenuous. For one, the Sumerian knowledge about the solar system seems far more advanced than biblical era knowledge and it predates it by thousands of years. They have a pretty credible history of representing the sun surrounded by the appropriate number of satellites for a start.

Only some parts of historical society thought the world was flat and the myth about fears that Columbus would sail off the edge of the world is one of those apocryphal tales that have little merit in reality. Most sea faring nations had worked out that the top of sails appear above the horizon before the rest of the ship appears and had inferred the spherical nature of the globe even though this might not be widespread knowledge in the community. Education was pretty much on a need to know basis up until only recent times. Eratosthenes in about 300BC used a well and a neighbouring one in Syrene to calculate the earths' diameter. That knowledge didn't exactly get rapidly spread across the globe.

When the vast map of human knowledge spreads out over time and cultures to paint a varied picture of both primitive and advanced capabilities throughout history, and then this gets ignored by the bible types who just quote a few random, barely interpretable stanzas out of context from 'one' book, again and again, you loose all credibility as an authority. '“scientific fact” in the Bible' has very little merit and trying to splice science and the bible together has a distasteful Island of Dr Moreau-ish abomination about it.


[Edited on 10-1-2018 by Chemetix]


I respect you’re opinion. No problems. But, just because there is a difference in opinion doesn’t make me wrong. After all, you gave an opinion. Do you think
Isaac Newton was “self serving” and “disingenuous”?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Morgan
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 1110
Registered: 28-12-2010
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 15:56


It's hard to imagine what life was like that long ago. Just watching this video, some thoughts came to mind just what reality might have been like, and in his case he flipped out from the isolation. It was strange seeing the ending, him walking the city with his cell phone out, contrasting the past and present.
Alone In The Past - Surviving 240 days in 10th century conditions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsAOjC5DYgw
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 237
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 17:01



"But, just because there is a difference in opinion doesn’t make me wrong. After all, you gave an opinion. "

Ahhh, this is the point I think we are trying to make here. I have lain out a series of examples that lead to a conclusion. It's different to saying just because history says Columbus sailed to the Americas I don't believe it... that's an opinion.
By using a series of logical steps to reach a conclusion the merit of that conclusion can be judged on the strength of the evidence used and the veracity of the logic connecting them.

The semantics of what constitutes an opinion is murky, but the general rule of thumb is a conclusion without all the facts is an opinion, or when subjective values are used.

You don't get to have your opinion on something that has weak evidence, narrow frames of reference or poor logic and equate it with a well written thesis that has a broad understanding of the topic, good evidence and references, and a conclusion that adheres to solid use of logic by calling them both opinions.

Science can get it wrong, but if it uses the principles of falsifiability, testable evidence and logic, then at least it can be wrong for the right reasons. But what this thread started as was a comparison of religion as a science, the general trend in the posts said this has no basis in logic, there is no evidence and the references are weak.

You have come here with an opinion and it has been met with logic. And in science we often face up to the fact we got it wrong, in fact we relish the prospect because it's not about us personally (alright-dignities and egos get hurt too) it's about the advancement of knowledge. You have covered your base by saying "It doesn't make me wrong" but if your logic and evidence were weighed against the counter arguments and evidence you'd come to say I might not be right with my hypothesis.

But no religion ever said that; and that is why it can never be thought of as science.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
ELRIC
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 177
Registered: 23-2-2015
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline


[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 17:50


Quote: Originally posted by Chemetix  

"But, just because there is a difference in opinion doesn’t make me wrong. After all, you gave an opinion. "

Ahhh, this is the point I think we are trying to make here. I have lain out a series of examples that lead to a conclusion. It's different to saying just because history says Columbus sailed to the Americas I don't believe it... that's an opinion.
By using a series of logical steps to reach a conclusion the merit of that conclusion can be judged on the strength of the evidence used and the veracity of the logic connecting them.

The semantics of what constitutes an opinion is murky, but the general rule of thumb is a conclusion without all the facts is an opinion, or when subjective values are used.

You don't get to have your opinion on something that has weak evidence, narrow frames of reference or poor logic and equate it with a well written thesis that has a broad understanding of the topic, good evidence and references, and a conclusion that adheres to solid use of logic by calling them both opinions.

Science can get it wrong, but if it uses the principles of falsifiability, testable evidence and logic, then at least it can be wrong for the right reasons. But what this thread started as was a comparison of religion as a science, the general trend in the posts said this has no basis in logic, there is no evidence and the references are weak.

You have come here with an opinion and it has been met with logic. And in science we often face up to the fact we got it wrong, in fact we relish the prospect because it's not about us personally (alright-dignities and egos get hurt too) it's about the advancement of knowledge. You have covered your base by saying "It doesn't make me wrong" but if your logic and evidence were weighed against the counter arguments and evidence you'd come to say I might not be right with my hypothesis.

But no religion ever said that; and that is why it can never be thought of as science.


Ok. I got ya. I respect you because you seem like you’re not a fuckin idiot.

But, first thing, you didn’t answer my question about Isaac Newton. I have no disrespect for anyone on this forum. Anyone here is IMO not stupid, and are here
to learn (minus the trolls). Now I also ask you two questions. What about Stephen
Hawkin. Is he the same as me? He changed his idea about creationism, and was
once an atheist. Now, why did Stephen change his view? I’m not trying to push
what I know on anybody (or should I say I believe). Can I ask you to give me a
Reference that shows I’m on the wrong path of knowledge or understanding?

Like I said, this ain’t a shit slinging fest, I’m just curious of you’re take on what I just
Stated
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Chemetix
Hazard to Others
***




Posts: 237
Registered: 23-9-2016
Location: Oztrayleeyah
Member Is Offline

Mood: Wavering between lucidity and madness

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 18:50


I'm glad we can remain dignified without devolving to a shit slinging match, we'll leave that for the Breitbart, Watts up with that, tabloid style forums. And in the spirit of inquiry I'm glad that a discussion like this can take place; in a post fact era we as scientists and scientific thinkers must defend against the encroachment of opinion and self serving factoids and spin that have been used to devalue science and the scientific method. Is this self serving?

I used self serving originally to mean something that benefits ones own point of view, but it might just as well include anything that an individual has vested interests in. Quoting the bible to prove the bible is a circular argument which is such a weak logical tactic that it can only be seen as self serving. It can only be seen as disingenuous when facts like the Greeks or Egyptians knowledge of a spherical earth is not hard to find and yet quoting Job: 26,7 as a source of biblical scientific fact, one that is meant to impress upon us how the bible was somehow replete with superior knowledge. in light of so many contravening facts
bible types who continue with literal interpretations, or worse, subjectively shuffle some stories off as allegory while others are authority.

If Isaac Newton used texts from alchemy to support his view that he could turn base things into gold then he would be self serving, because there is no evidence or logic to alchemy that is strong enough to support his claims. He was an avid alchemist despite writing Principia Mathematica. People do have odd ideas about things, they come to conclusions like Hawking did for a number of reasons. Linus Pauling has two Nobel prizes and was still batshit crazy in terms of thinking vitamin C has any medical benefits other than it's biological role as a vitamin.

And no, I don't think I can give you a single reference that will somehow give you an epiphany to whether you you are right or wrong. Logic exists outside any one source and a mind that sees the value in it's power to reveal truth comes to that conclusion individually after being taught it's benefits.

If you can use brutal logic that predicts experimental results that support creation, great, we'll listen. Anything less than that is conjecture.
View user's profile View All Posts By User
Texium (zts16)
Super Moderator
*******




Posts: 2583
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: San Marcos, TX
Member Is Offline

Mood: Polyphenolic

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 19:59


Nice to see that this has remained civil. I suppose I'll add my piece as well.

I consider myself to be atheist, but to be completely accurate, I'm somewhere between atheist and agnostic. My conclusion about the universe is that if there is a greater intelligence behind it, it would be so massive as to be incomprehensible by our minds. Such an intelligence would take no more interest in meddling with the affairs of us humans than a human would take in meddling with the affairs of individual bacteria. To me, the question of how the universe (or universes) came to be is not very important, at least not at this point in time- there are countless other smaller questions that still must be answered before that problem can become accessible. As far as why the universe appears to be so orderly and fit for our existence, I’ve been reading a lot lately about the Anthropic Principle, which essentially states that our observations of the “perfectness” of the universe are biased by the fact that we are able to exist in this universe. I know that sounds a little weird, but trying to imagine what the the universe would be like if a fundamental constant or two happened to be different is sort of like trying to imagine yourself being a different person- it’s not really possible, because you are YOU, with your genetic makeup, and not the other person.

I think that the reason that many people cling to religion or turn to it later is the discomfort that comes with thinking about our relatively insignificant position in the universe and the randomness of our evolution. Religion is comforting in light of this by giving a reason and meaning to the universe and life that regular observation and science doesn’t provide. I confess that for this reason, I would probably feel more comfortable and happy if I was religious, but I don’t like lying to myself.

So that leads to the question, if there is no God and we are just tiny observers in a vast, apathetic, and random universe, what should we care about? The best conclusion I’ve drawn at this point is to see the universe as a two part system. The Universe proper, and the Anthropoverse. The Universe is what I’ve already described- it is the realm of the objective reality that would carry on, presumably, without human interference or observation. The Anthropoverse, on the other hand, is the reality that we share as human beings. As humans, we share a uniform set of biases and limitations based on our biology and location in the universe. These limitations are absolute, since it is not possible for a human to cease being human. Even when we use computers to make observations and run calculations, our interpretations of the results are still limited to what out minds can comprehend. The Anthropoverse is the reality that we interact directly with in order to better understand the Universe. The Universe does not need a reason to exist, but humans do, because we evolved with the desire to understand “why” and not just “what.” When you look at it that way, it is clear that the need for a meaning of life and a reason for existence is not a Universal requirement, but an Anthropoversal one. Overall, this line of thinking led me back to Secular Humanism, which I think is an accurate umbrella for my thoughts on ethics, morality, and purpose.




Come check out the Official Sciencemadness Wiki
Have a particular topic you're really interested in currently? Why not make a page for it? The wiki can always benefit from more contributors.

My (now defunct) YouTube Channel: Texium
My blog: Texium
View user's profile Visit user's homepage View All Posts By User
Magpie
lab constructor
*****




Posts: 5595
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: USA
Member Is Offline

Mood: Chemistry: the subtle science.

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 20:24


Quote: Originally posted by vmelkon  


I think that you don't know what free will is and neither does anyone else including me.

If you know what free will is, explain it to me.


I think "free will" means you get to make your own choices, ie, God is not directing your actions.

I watched the video "240 days in the wilderness alone." This is an amazing story. I don't blame Pavel for killing his goat in rage.

I have done some camping alone for a few days. But I found myself driving 30 miles into town each evening to eat supper at Taco Bell just to be around people.




The single most important condition for a successful synthesis is good mixing - Nicodem
View user's profile View All Posts By User
j_sum1
International Hazard
*****




Posts: 3398
Registered: 4-10-2014
Location: Oz
Member Is Offline

Mood: Struggling with inter-job inertia.

[*] posted on 10-1-2018 at 22:20


Well, it is lovely in this instance to be shown wrong. I seriously doubted that the topic would last this long or be this productive.
So far only one death wish. Thanks, AF. Received in the jest with which it was intended. :)

That said, this thread has meandered all over the topic and questions have been raised at a faster rate than they can be addressed. I wouldn't mind tackling some of the highlights.

On the matter of the contribution of religion to our world
Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
When has religion ever produced any useful knowledge? It's a hypothesis based on no evidence and with no predictive power whatsoever.

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
How much useful knowledge has religion provided? Things that actually improves our life? I'm thinking philosophy, engineering, medical sciences and everything else that improves our lives. Not much.


Interesting question. I think I will answer it in part -- with the caveat that this in no way proves Christianity or any other religious view.
In the field of Science it is clearly demonstrable that many of the greats were motivated in their pursuit of truth by their Christian faith. I am talking guys like Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kepler and plenty more. From their writings we know that they regarded the discovery of scientific knowledge as glorifying to God and the pursuit of that knowledge as a form of worship. Thus we benefit directly from their religious views.
This is critical, not as a proof of religion but to demonstrate that Religion and Science can not only coexist but can do so in a mutually beneficial way. Furthermore, we should not be in a rush to brand as untrue, misleading or evil (quoting Dawkins) something that has so evidently facilitated the progress of scientific truth. Christianity needs to be considered in a more careful and judicious fashion. (I won't speak for other religious views at this point.)
In fields other than Science, religion has made an enormous contribution to the arts and music. In the West our entire justice and governance systems are based historically on Christian thinking. Values such as equality and justice for all, freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, honesty in business transactions and many more can trace their lineage (through documentation) to biblical principles. (If you think I am over-stating the Christian heritage of the West here, think about what it is like to do business with China or hold a non-conformist opinion in Yemen. There is a strong correlation between nations exercising what we regard as fundamental freedoms and having a Christian history.) Christianity has contributed enormously to social reform. Education, hospitals, sufferage, social welfare, abolition of slavery, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, foreign aid (Red Cross etc) have all been in their inception the enterprise of Christian organisations. Before we begin throwing out the ancient texts we might take a critical look at what the Bible says on some of the critical issues of our day: perhaps an issue like environmental sustainability. Stewardship of resources is a very pronounced theme in the book of Genesis. Adam was placed in the Garden to "tend and keep it". Numerous times it discusses humanity being given resources by God and also being given the responsibility to manage them appropriately. We just might benefit from a close look at the underlying principles espoused.
So, this particular objection, Fulmen, is not factually based.


On the subject of prayer.
Quote: Originally posted by JJay  
What do you think about doing a controlled experiment to see if prayer actually works?

Prayer, if it is anything at all is primarily relational. To view it merely as petition: asking for stuff, is to view it in an unbiblical fashion. The answer given, "Thou shalt not put the Lord to the test" with the meaning that God refuses to play silly games to appease the whims of scientists, this is a technicaly correct response. But it comes across as glib and very much a cop-out.
Back to the concept of prayer being relational. I could ask my wife for something -- and I might get it. Or I might not. Quite frankly, she has her own mind and does her own thing and she is often not much swayed by what I think or want. But I communicate because that brings about a conformity of wills and also of actions. It might be that I need to do something as well as ask for something. Prayer changes the person doing the praying much more than it alters the mind of a divine being.
Which brings us to a particular theological paradox that arises in Christianity. If God is (a) immutable, (b) sovereign and (c) exists outside of time, knowing the future anyway, how is it that prayer should have any effect at all in bending the will of God? Theologians ponder such things (and there are good robust answers to that question). But most Christians simply pray and have the sense that something tangible or intangible changes when they do so. I won't speak for Islam or any other religion. To my knowledge the Christian approach to prayer is unique.
The outcome of this is that prayer won't submit well to scientific investigation. Nor will my communication with my wife for that matter. Studies have been done on prayer and a positive correlation has been shown on numerous occasions. But they remain largely unconvincing mostly because of the nature of the subject material.


On the topic of extracting scientific ideas from the Bible
Quote: Originally posted by ELRIC  

“It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭40:22‬ ‭

“The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.”
‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:3‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.”
‭‭Job‬ ‭26:7‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Quote: Originally posted by Chemetix  
Quoting pseudo science from the bible and using a sort of urban myth about primitive knowledge to reinforce the biblical account is self serving and disingenuous.

Quote: Originally posted by Chemetix  
Quoting the bible to prove the bible is a circular argument which is such a weak logical tactic that it can only be seen as self serving.


These quotations are intriguing and quite well known. But Chemetix is right: they do not serve properly as proof-texts of the Bible. It might be different if we could do an exhaustive fact check on every word of the Bible; if of course we could somehow circumvent the numerous issues concerning interpretation.
What these passages and others like it do do is show that the Bible is sophisticated in its treatment of natural phenomena. Its descriptions are detailed, insightful and non-trivial. Some people choose to dismiss the Bible on the grounds that it is made-up or it is a fantasy or it is unintelligent or some kind of fraud or hoax. These kind of scriptures tell us that such a dismissive approach is prejudicial and inappropriate. Like it or not, the Bible is a remarkably deep and remarkably influential book. Its claims are worthy of consideration. This is true even if we have witnessed abuses of the biblical text or if we encounter portions we disagree with or which make us uncomfortable.
However, I don't think Chemetix has hit the nail on the head when he talks about how we might quote the Bible. There are two things to say here.
Firstly, it is entirely appropriate to quote portions of the Bible and compare them with other portions of the Bible. This is not circular in a negative sense. The Bible uses internal quotations itself as a way of reinforcing its central themes. Therefore taking multiple quotations (even occasionally out of context) is consistent with the way the Bible was intended to be read. More importantly however, comparing the Bible with the Bible is necessary to establish internal consistency. If there is considerable agreeance within the Bible then this lends credibility to it.
Secondly, and this is I think central to what ELRIC was trying to get across, it is appropriate to make comparisons between the Biblical text and what has been observed of our universe. If we can observe a consistent match between biblical descriptions and empirical observations (and established scientific theory) then this lends credibility to the biblical text as a whole. Of course it does not prove it in its entirety. But it does show just cause for not dismissing it lightly on those matters that cannot be empiricaly tested.


And finally
On the matter of the OP's video
I have numerous problems with what was shown -- as I think we all do. As an educator I would suggest that my objections are greater than most.
I have problems with their pedagogy. I have problems with the validity of the assessment tools used. I have problems with what I observed of their understanding of Science. I have probems with what I observed of their understanding of Christianity. And I have very significant problems with the manner and content of their communication -- that they should invite a reporter in and not be able to give a robust and reasoned account for their practices.
The biblical injunction is, "always be prepared to give an account, to anyone who asks, for the hope that is in you. But do so with gentleness and respect." (1Peter 3:15)
There are two aspects to this: one is content and the other is attitude. The verse implies (and some translations show this more strongly than others) that Christianity should come across as a reasonable faith. That is there are good and logical reasons for the position that Christians hold. Moreover it states the necessity for Christians to be prepared in advance -- they have done the study, they have done the thinking, they can provide the evidence, they can show the logic, they can give a defense. Failure to give sound reasoning or doing so in an arrogant or beligerant fashion is a violation of the second part of the verse. The way I see it is that this school has failed in so many ways that it is indeed concerning.

Having said this, what was observed in that video is by no means representative of Christian eduacation as a whole. I think it is possible to present and teach a Christian view in a far more credible fashion: in a way that encourages deep analytical thought of the kind that can lead to the scientific and other advancements taht I mentioned earlier.
Greg Koukl once said, "if you wish to counter a view then one of the things you can do is find a really good characterisation of that view and counter that." I would not consider that video a good characterisation of a creationist view. While it presents numerous concerns, beating up religious views on the basis of that video is little more than a strawman.



I have a proposal to make.
I think that this thread has been a good one and it has been valuable to wander over a range of topics and questions and hear a number of views.
As you may have gathered, I prefer to approach these matters in a detailed, methodical and systematic fashion. If there is anyone who has the inclination to wade through my copious musings I would quite like to present an account in what I hope is an intellectualy satisfying fashion. This thread is not the place for it however.

What I propose is that I begin a thread under the heading, "A theistic approach to Science". I could outline why I feel that theism is a valid and justified response to science and the questions we encounter in our world. After giving a broad overview I could drop in periodically to present each of the individual arguments in detail and to respond to questions and objections that people raise, including this doozy that Vosoryx raised.

What do you think? Anyone in or will it be a waste of my time?
J.









A little shameless self-promotion: You are welcome to tour my newly-completed lab.
Latest offering. Notification not being sent to subscribers for some reason.
:?
View user's profile View All Posts By User
 Pages:  1    3    5  ..  8

  Go To Top