Scientific knowledge

[Chris Coose]

Re: Scientific knowledge

The alternatives to scientific knowledge makes me wanna eat worms for breakfast.

[Tom Montgomery]

Re: Scientific knowledge

None of the science skeptics actually have the courage of their convictions. None of them hesitates to engage the services of an M.D. or a hospital when they feel ill. They merely question the science that underlies modern medicine. In the hope of advancing scientific knowledge and all. Not that any of them are actual scientists.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Scientific knowledge

Questioning in the process of scientific inquiry does indeed advance scientific understanding. Debates in the WBF Bilge do nothing to further scientific understanding.

When one speaks of "something from nothing" in his critique of the theory of evolution by natural selection one is simply displaying his ignorance. Abiogenesis is something entire and separate from the theory of evolution.

FYI evolution by natural selection is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. As is General Relativity.

That is Theory, with an uppercase "T".

There are (by now at least) three hypotheses for how self replicating molecules arose.

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Scientific knowledge

I'm not interested. I'm also not convinced that evolution is anything more than a hypothesis with very slim evidence supporting it, and I think its popularity owes more to the desire for something that will make religion redundant than it does to rational, considered, analysis based upon hard evidence.

Yup, the two grand existential questions: 1) "Is evolution real?", and 2) "Does God exist?"

I think MY problem is that I can be intellectually lazy; I don't find much of ANY appeal in desperately searching for answers to questions which, owing to their nature, will never be answered. No amount of navel-gazing will produce a satisfactory result that I can label as 'the truth'.

One observation I could make, however, has to do with the justifications of both the faithful, and the evolutionists. Here, in the quote above, Aquinan suggests that evolutionary theory is supported by those who have an antipathy towards religion.....

...but he doesn't suggest, as may ALSO be true, that the faithful have antipathy toward evolution, because THEY perceive it as attacking the foundations of their faith.

Personally, I don't really care about someone's religion... faith is a very personal thing, so if it fulfills and satisfies someone's psyche/soul/whatever, good for them. As for evolution, it's theory backed by observation, and intrinsically un-provable, so no one NEEDS to 'believe' in the theory.

I have faith in the observations... and I don't need to have faith in the theory. It's just science.

[Tom Montgomery]

Re: Scientific knowledge

I'm... not convinced that evolution is anything more than a hypothesis with very slim evidence supporting it....

Now really folks. How can a WBF Bilge debate trump that statement? You are all wasting your time debating him on this.

I recommend that Aquinian head to his nearest Catholic high school or university, sit in on the biology class, and correct the instructor. He'll accomplish just as much as he is attempting to accomplish here.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Scientific knowledge

...but he doesn't suggest, as may ALSO be true, that the faithful have antipathy toward evolution, because THEY perceive it as attacking the foundations of their faith.

That has always puzzled me. Surely Christianity is about Christ's Teaching. Is that not powerful enough to stand on its own, no matter how we came into existence.?

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Scientific knowledge

That has always puzzled me. Surely Christianity is about Christ's Teaching. Is that not powerful enough to stand on its own, no matter how we came into existence.?

It's a human nature thing: once we adopt a powerful belief, we want to convince others of our truth, and we want to defend our belief. Christianity and proselytizing have been best friends since the time of Christ... sometimes peaceful, other times even war-like (remember the Crusades?). It's no different for the most fervent of Muslims: "Adopt our faith, or you're an infidel and we're going to kill you."

One interesting aspect of Judaism, the 'faith' I was brought up in (it's not really a 'faith', per se) is that it has never had any impulse to promote conversion... and, in fact, the most religious of Jewish sects wouldn't even recognize a conversion. Although unsaid, it's about bloodlines, for Jews.... it's tribal. I have noted before, and heard this from more than one Rabbi, that as a Jew, it isn't necessary to 'believe'.... it is only necessary to act like a Jew... the prayer and religious observations are obligations.

Unfortunately, nobody every told me how I acquired this obligation.... I never took it upon myself.

[Tom Montgomery]

Re: Scientific knowledge

If acceptance of modern biological science threatens faith in God, then why does the Roman Catholic Church allow modern biological science to be taught in their educational institutions?

Anyone? Perhaps the basic premise of the religious science deniers is incorrect?

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Scientific knowledge

If acceptance of modern biological science threatens faith in God, then why does the Roman Catholic Church allow modern biological science to be taught in their educational institutions?

Anyone?

They do so because they recognize that they MUST find a way to converge the spiritual with the rational, or else BOTH are subject to denial. It's actually one of their more reasonable positions; they can't deny the evidence of science, so they find a way to rationalize the existence of both.

[CWSmith]

Re: Scientific knowledge

... the Catholic Church has no issue whatsoever with evolutionary science, only with the illogical and unfounded claim that evolution somehow affects the question of whether God exists....I'm also not convinced that evolution is anything more than a hypothesis with very slim evidence supporting it, and I think its popularity owes more to the desire for something that will make religion redundant than it does to rational, considered, analysis based upon hard evidence.

I would place evolution somewhere ahead of climate change in that for both there is ample evidence they exist, but still much to be learned about the internal dynamics and time scales.

You're right about the Catholic Church. Sadly, there continue to be many uninformed Catholics who do not know this.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Scientific knowledge

It's a human nature thing: once we adopt a powerful belief, we want to convince others of our truth, and we want to defend our belief. Christianity and proselytizing have been best friends since the time of Christ... sometimes peaceful, other times even war-like (remember the Crusades?). It's no different for the most fervent of Muslims: "Adopt our faith, or you're an infidel and we're going to kill you."

One interesting aspect of Judaism, the 'faith' I was brought up in (it's not really a 'faith', per se) is that it has never had any impulse to promote conversion... and, in fact, the most religious of Jewish sects wouldn't even recognize a conversion. Although unsaid, it's about bloodlines, for Jews.... it's tribal. I have noted before, and heard this from more than one Rabbi, that as a Jew, it isn't necessary to 'believe'.... it is only necessary to act like a Jew... the prayer and religious observations are obligations.

Unfortunately, nobody every told me how I acquired this obligation.... I never took it upon myself.

Neither did H M Queen.

Whilst your opening paragraph is true, a good point well made, it does not address the question about why many Christians seem to be more hung up about first testament myths than they pay attention to Christ's actual teaching.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Scientific knowledge

I would place evolution somewhere ahead of climate change in that for both there is ample evidence they exist, but still much to be learned about the internal dynamics and time scales.

You're right about the Catholic Church. Sadly, there continue to be many uninformed Catholics who do not know this.

The Vatican learned their lesson from the Galileo debacle, and determined to get ahead of that particular curve.

[CWSmith]

Re: Scientific knowledge

The Vatican learned their lesson from the Galileo debacle, and determined to get ahead of that particular curve.

Yes and no. We should remember that Galileo got into trouble for defying the Vatican, not that his science was anti-Bible.

But you are right. They do try to stay informed and not make rush judgements where science is concerned. Now, if we could only get them to look at birth control in that same manner...

[Norman Bernstein]

Re: Scientific knowledge

Whilst your opening paragraph is true, a good point well made, it does not address the question about why many Christians seem to be more hung up about first testament myths than they pay attention to Christ's actual teaching.

The answer to your question is well-addressed by considering that the Ku Klux Klan features Christian crosses and imagery on their hooded regalia. Christianity is quite often the 'cover' for a lot of very 'un-Christian' ideals (and the same can be said for Islam, and perhaps a few other faiths.... lately, we could add Myanmar, and the Buddhist persecution of their Muslim minority, to that list).

Have you ever met a Christian who didn't think that their particular Christian sect was the 'right and correct' one? They're NOT interchangeable, even though they all carry the imprimatur of the very same foundation of faith.

[CWSmith]

Re: Scientific knowledge

The answer to your question is well-addressed by considering that the Ku Klux Klan features Christian crosses and imagery on their hooded regalia. Christianity is quite often the 'cover' for a lot of very 'un-Christian' ideals (and the same can be said for Islam, and perhaps a few other faiths.... lately, we could add Myanmar, and the Buddhist persecution of their Muslim minority, to that list).

Have you ever met a Christian who didn't think that their particular Christian sect was the 'right and correct' one? They're NOT interchangeable, even though they all carry the imprimatur of the very same foundation of faith.

And then there is Israel... And Islam... Our ability to distort and pervert religious teaching knows no bounds.

What we need to remember is that it is all a perversion and must be rejected by those who know better.