Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Sorry, there were not TWO solutions to this debate (Speedy and Hippy) but THREE!
I don´t remember the name of the genius that proposed the third one.
According to him:
Is not ONLY that all scientists lie (Hippy said).
Is NOT that they don´t lie on purpose but are fools about explanation (Speedy said)
Nooooo, no! The genius is more creative.
In his though, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, James Watson and Francis Crick were Satanists!!!!
Please, call the Holly Inquisition or, if not found, the KKK
We´ll burn them all, evil scientists!
I don´t remember the name of the genius that proposed the third one.
According to him:
Is not ONLY that all scientists lie (Hippy said).
Is NOT that they don´t lie on purpose but are fools about explanation (Speedy said)
Nooooo, no! The genius is more creative.
In his though, Leonardo da Vinci, Galileo, Einstein, Bohr, Pasteur, James Watson and Francis Crick were Satanists!!!!
Please, call the Holly Inquisition or, if not found, the KKK
We´ll burn them all, evil scientists!
1-25 of 29
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 Speedy, before answering, read to whom and wich posts I am answering, so you avoid to derrail.
If you take a look, my answer about the Inquisition answered a guy who said that scientists were and are disciples of Satan. Which says he is.
But this was not directed to you.
And Speedy, if you read my answers to your pal, Hippy, you will see what I´ve said about scientists and their faiths.
I NEVER said that christians can not be good scientists. It would be an evident lie.
Because, in the world scientific community and I know this in person, there are a lot.
And, of course, the SAME can be said about jews, muslims, budhists (...other faiths) and atheists.
Why? Simply because being good scientists do not deppend AT ALL of their religions or not being religious at all. It´s relevant for other important aspects of their own lifes and TOTALLY irrelevant regarding the practice of Science.
And that´s WHY so scientists as others, both religious as atheists, make a mess when they try to USE (in the worst sense) Science to debate about religión from whatever side of the fence.
Or WORST, to dress non scientific assertions as being scientific ones.
I don´t want to put words that you never said in your mouth.
But, just in case, IF (and only if) what you were saying was that being "true believers" (aside the arrogance of saying who is "true" or not, only God can) is a NEED for doing Science, then, in that hypothetical case, you are badly wrong.
You would be (hope you are not) making the same kind of mess above described.
Faith is not an obstacle for doing Science and neither a requirement for doing Science.
That, if true, and the scientific community works well on such assumption, makes Science be secular.
Wich do not clash with the right of scientists of being either religious or atheists.
But stongly collides with any claim to make Science subordinated, by any means, to any kind of philosophic / religious / anti religious "First Philosophy".
As an adenum, I´ll say that, during the about four centuries of Science as we know it, Science as a secular activity have provided the knowledge that we all know.
While this, previous (so ancient as medieval) as recent mere philosophic worldviews had given NONE.
Not even ONE.
If you take a look, my answer about the Inquisition answered a guy who said that scientists were and are disciples of Satan. Which says he is.
But this was not directed to you.
And Speedy, if you read my answers to your pal, Hippy, you will see what I´ve said about scientists and their faiths.
I NEVER said that christians can not be good scientists. It would be an evident lie.
Because, in the world scientific community and I know this in person, there are a lot.
And, of course, the SAME can be said about jews, muslims, budhists (...other faiths) and atheists.
Why? Simply because being good scientists do not deppend AT ALL of their religions or not being religious at all. It´s relevant for other important aspects of their own lifes and TOTALLY irrelevant regarding the practice of Science.
And that´s WHY so scientists as others, both religious as atheists, make a mess when they try to USE (in the worst sense) Science to debate about religión from whatever side of the fence.
Or WORST, to dress non scientific assertions as being scientific ones.
I don´t want to put words that you never said in your mouth.
But, just in case, IF (and only if) what you were saying was that being "true believers" (aside the arrogance of saying who is "true" or not, only God can) is a NEED for doing Science, then, in that hypothetical case, you are badly wrong.
You would be (hope you are not) making the same kind of mess above described.
Faith is not an obstacle for doing Science and neither a requirement for doing Science.
That, if true, and the scientific community works well on such assumption, makes Science be secular.
Wich do not clash with the right of scientists of being either religious or atheists.
But stongly collides with any claim to make Science subordinated, by any means, to any kind of philosophic / religious / anti religious "First Philosophy".
As an adenum, I´ll say that, during the about four centuries of Science as we know it, Science as a secular activity have provided the knowledge that we all know.
While this, previous (so ancient as medieval) as recent mere philosophic worldviews had given NONE.
Not even ONE.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ [quote]Speedy, before answering, read to whom and which posts I am answering, so you avoid to derail.[/quote]
I'm sorry but you don't say whom you're talking with on your post. I merely point out that science itself is not the problem. I don't know what you believe, but, for me, I believe God gave us science to show us His creation and how He's made it all work. But that's me.
I'm sorry but you don't say whom you're talking with on your post. I merely point out that science itself is not the problem. I don't know what you believe, but, for me, I believe God gave us science to show us His creation and how He's made it all work. But that's me.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 You are welcome.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 As both an extensión of a previous post of mine (sorry if a long one) and a comment of yours.
And also answering to some Hippy comments.
I never said (read carefully) that Science [b]should[/b] a priory reject assertions / theories [b]because[/b] they are not secular.
What i definetly said was:
- That ANY assertion / theory of ANY kind MUST accomplish scientific criteria, the ones historical in Science since it is Science and not only Philosophy, to claim the right of being considered Scientific.
- That, till today, ID (amongst other proposals, religious but also not religious ones) never met those unavoidable requirements.
As an example, the most extense intent of giving ID a mathematical basis, Dembski, was not rejected because ID but because it was BAD MATH.
- As an historical observation based on the documented history of Science, same Science had succeeded in offering good (even if not enough) knowledge.
- In the opposite, only philosophic tought and reassoning, so religious as not, so ancient as contemporary, had never, not once, gave something of the kind.
And also answering to some Hippy comments.
I never said (read carefully) that Science [b]should[/b] a priory reject assertions / theories [b]because[/b] they are not secular.
What i definetly said was:
- That ANY assertion / theory of ANY kind MUST accomplish scientific criteria, the ones historical in Science since it is Science and not only Philosophy, to claim the right of being considered Scientific.
- That, till today, ID (amongst other proposals, religious but also not religious ones) never met those unavoidable requirements.
As an example, the most extense intent of giving ID a mathematical basis, Dembski, was not rejected because ID but because it was BAD MATH.
- As an historical observation based on the documented history of Science, same Science had succeeded in offering good (even if not enough) knowledge.
- In the opposite, only philosophic tought and reassoning, so religious as not, so ancient as contemporary, had never, not once, gave something of the kind.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ Science did not give good math. It was nonsense based on nonsense based on theory driven agenda not observation. There simply is no basis for rational people to believe that nothing became something for no reason. Furthermore no rational person would believe that order came from chaos for no reason. And again no rational person would believe that the intricacies we see in even the simplest life forms came about by chance or accident. Finally no rational person would believe that life came from non life for for no reason. Especially since no one can define what life actually is. All the right chemicals in all the right places is dead unless it has life in it. Rational thinking is not on the evolutionist side of the formula. The evolutionists are completely irrational in these matters.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Hippy, "racionallity" is not enough for doing Science.
Most of ancient and later philosophers were, in different ways, "rationallists" and, even so (and perhaps BECAUSE so) they did not Science.
Plato, Aristóteles (besides formal Logic), Descartes (besides his contributions to math), St. Agustine were not scientists but philosophers. They did not Science.
Your others asertions have even less basis.
No rational person could think in Relativity or DNA as rational ideas. But their rationallity and commonsense intuitions were totally wrong while Relativity and DNA are true.
The Ptolomaic system was the hallmark of rationallity for more than 700 years. But was false.
If you replace the word Chaos (in it´s old philosophic mythic meaning) by "randomness", there is something to debate.
But you are slightly confused. Chaos, for Science (by example, Physics) is not randomness but deterministic in a complex way.
Finally, natural "laws" (wich cognitive side is formalized by scientific laws) are not accidents nor chance (even if some randomness is involved only sometimes).
But are not at all commandements with a previous concious knowledge behind.
The opposite to randomn accidents is not a previous plan or recipe.
May they be? Perhaps.
But they don´t need to be.
They work as well and fine as always did without that assumption.
And saying that that is a need for logical "rationallity" is provided by talking such assumption as an a priori truth. Being that logic proves nothing about the premises and only about the consequences IF the premises are asumed true (wich logic itself can´t say).
And EVEN THAT with a grain of salt.
As said, Ptolemaic description of the skyes were "rational" with few flaws.
And was erroneous.
Your conception of the meaning of Information needs, as well, an upgrade from ancient times.
For a basic, read Shannon, a classic.
The "knowledge" side of Information is a small part of it all in the Universe.
Most of it is physical.
There are plenty of carefull lab observations of mutations autonomous re writing the "code" of DNA / RNA of organisms giving, sometimes, viable living change creatures.
That over an objective "code", that becomes again functional after it´s change with no need to asume "knowledge" but information, wich is not the same.
Knowledge is contained in Information but the reciprocal is not true.
Most of ancient and later philosophers were, in different ways, "rationallists" and, even so (and perhaps BECAUSE so) they did not Science.
Plato, Aristóteles (besides formal Logic), Descartes (besides his contributions to math), St. Agustine were not scientists but philosophers. They did not Science.
Your others asertions have even less basis.
No rational person could think in Relativity or DNA as rational ideas. But their rationallity and commonsense intuitions were totally wrong while Relativity and DNA are true.
The Ptolomaic system was the hallmark of rationallity for more than 700 years. But was false.
If you replace the word Chaos (in it´s old philosophic mythic meaning) by "randomness", there is something to debate.
But you are slightly confused. Chaos, for Science (by example, Physics) is not randomness but deterministic in a complex way.
Finally, natural "laws" (wich cognitive side is formalized by scientific laws) are not accidents nor chance (even if some randomness is involved only sometimes).
But are not at all commandements with a previous concious knowledge behind.
The opposite to randomn accidents is not a previous plan or recipe.
May they be? Perhaps.
But they don´t need to be.
They work as well and fine as always did without that assumption.
And saying that that is a need for logical "rationallity" is provided by talking such assumption as an a priori truth. Being that logic proves nothing about the premises and only about the consequences IF the premises are asumed true (wich logic itself can´t say).
And EVEN THAT with a grain of salt.
As said, Ptolemaic description of the skyes were "rational" with few flaws.
And was erroneous.
Your conception of the meaning of Information needs, as well, an upgrade from ancient times.
For a basic, read Shannon, a classic.
The "knowledge" side of Information is a small part of it all in the Universe.
Most of it is physical.
There are plenty of carefull lab observations of mutations autonomous re writing the "code" of DNA / RNA of organisms giving, sometimes, viable living change creatures.
That over an objective "code", that becomes again functional after it´s change with no need to asume "knowledge" but information, wich is not the same.
Knowledge is contained in Information but the reciprocal is not true.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Again, Speedy, read it again, please.
I never said their were satanists.
You did not saying that they were satanists.
I was being gently ironic with the guy (that, once more, was not you nor me) who said that the ones that say what Leonardo da Vinci (in a certain quote) and Galileo Galileo (in another) were being guided by Satan.
Both Watson and Crick are atheists.
While others well known (and less knwon) scientists are or were not.
There are jews, christians, muslims, budhists and other ones as there are atheists.
Which is in fact irrelevant for doing Science.
Even if it´s important for other aspects of their lifes.
Again and again, what Galileo said (even if he quoted someone else): "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
Same that think, about their own religious texts, most of scientists of different religions.
Consequently, for approaching how "the heaven go" (how is the natural world) they all do Science.
For which, they don´t have any reason for denying their faiths. But certainly also neither one solely reason for tolerating to put Science under the guardianship of ANY religious or political HUMAN powers.
I never said their were satanists.
You did not saying that they were satanists.
I was being gently ironic with the guy (that, once more, was not you nor me) who said that the ones that say what Leonardo da Vinci (in a certain quote) and Galileo Galileo (in another) were being guided by Satan.
Both Watson and Crick are atheists.
While others well known (and less knwon) scientists are or were not.
There are jews, christians, muslims, budhists and other ones as there are atheists.
Which is in fact irrelevant for doing Science.
Even if it´s important for other aspects of their lifes.
Again and again, what Galileo said (even if he quoted someone else): "The bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go".
Same that think, about their own religious texts, most of scientists of different religions.
Consequently, for approaching how "the heaven go" (how is the natural world) they all do Science.
For which, they don´t have any reason for denying their faiths. But certainly also neither one solely reason for tolerating to put Science under the guardianship of ANY religious or political HUMAN powers.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Of course, Speedy, I recognize the shortfalls of my not always enough use of English, not my first language.
Even so, in this particular case, I think it would work if you read carefully the sequence of posts and to whom are answered.
I stand for what I´ve said, anyhow:
- No one needs to deny their faith to do Science and do it well.
- No one needs to have a religious faith to do Science and to do it well
- And neither, to have a certain religious faith instead of other one to do Science and to do it well.
And all this because their faiths, to do Science and to do it well, are not relevant for neither the assumptions of Science nor for the scope and objectives of Science.
Finally, that, looking at both, History and actual debates, those who propose (no matter whom) to subordinate Science in any way to any Philosophy (or whatever you call it) that "should" replace the right and task of Science to provide knowledge, explanation and meaning, that one is wrong.
Even so, in this particular case, I think it would work if you read carefully the sequence of posts and to whom are answered.
I stand for what I´ve said, anyhow:
- No one needs to deny their faith to do Science and do it well.
- No one needs to have a religious faith to do Science and to do it well
- And neither, to have a certain religious faith instead of other one to do Science and to do it well.
And all this because their faiths, to do Science and to do it well, are not relevant for neither the assumptions of Science nor for the scope and objectives of Science.
Finally, that, looking at both, History and actual debates, those who propose (no matter whom) to subordinate Science in any way to any Philosophy (or whatever you call it) that "should" replace the right and task of Science to provide knowledge, explanation and meaning, that one is wrong.
hippyjoe1955 · 61-69, M
@CharlieZ The difference is the number of scientists who formed their idea abut their God based on their scientific understanding of the universe and how it came to be. Most of those became Christian or Jews. Why? Because only the Judaeo/Christian God meets the criteria. Only Yahweh is said to have created light and space and time life being as He is beyond all such things. The other gods are captives of the universe and therefore could not have created it .
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 Take in account that:
- Those same scientists that you mention don´t include any religious assumption in their scientific work. (Even if they have a personal faith).
- That the number of the ones who do Science within it´s secular scope (the Scientific community that you frequently insult) outweights by hundreds of thousands to the few ones that don´t. (That if YOUR quantitative argument haves some value, not so sure).
- That, from a more qualitative view (rather than a quantitative one), that is a scientific "culture" (wich haves [b]some[/b] Sociological and Historical weight), [b]that Science was born as such, was shaped, rised well and gave valuable fruits ONLY SINCE it conquered it´s authonomy from the power and "authority" of religious thinking.
[/b]
- That the activity and way of thinking that I and others call Science had and have massive well known ressults along Historry.
- While this, the activity of religious subordinated thinkers, besides each one prefferences, can´t show any autonomous ressult of scientific value.
- Those same scientists that you mention don´t include any religious assumption in their scientific work. (Even if they have a personal faith).
- That the number of the ones who do Science within it´s secular scope (the Scientific community that you frequently insult) outweights by hundreds of thousands to the few ones that don´t. (That if YOUR quantitative argument haves some value, not so sure).
- That, from a more qualitative view (rather than a quantitative one), that is a scientific "culture" (wich haves [b]some[/b] Sociological and Historical weight), [b]that Science was born as such, was shaped, rised well and gave valuable fruits ONLY SINCE it conquered it´s authonomy from the power and "authority" of religious thinking.
[/b]
- That the activity and way of thinking that I and others call Science had and have massive well known ressults along Historry.
- While this, the activity of religious subordinated thinkers, besides each one prefferences, can´t show any autonomous ressult of scientific value.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hippyjoe1955 That wonder of yours is the problem of your thinking, hippy.
1-25 of 29