|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 8:45:54 GMT -5
As it relates to personality, the idea of the soul is born along by our concept of God. For if physics were actually divorcible from metaphysics, each and every one of our personalities, indeed the whole concept of personality, would be utterly vain and meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2016 9:18:10 GMT -5
And theres lots of scientists whose idea dont pan out. Scientitism treats science as if it were an authority unto itself. This is an act of worship. Atheists and theists should resist this tendency together, if for no other reason, because its duplicitous. Science and its methods are the authority. If a theory is presented and the results cannot be independently replicated and verified, the theory is discarded or modified to take into account the new data. If you make a claim and cannot present supporting data it is just your belief.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 9:25:19 GMT -5
Data is meaningless apart from interpretation. We interpret data and determine application. Data doesnt interpret itself. The man who regards science in terms of a revealed authority is worshiping. What he does not make plain is who and what he is worshipping.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2016 11:18:38 GMT -5
Data is meaningless apart from interpretation. That is why the data is made available to everyone who wishes to test the conclusions reached. Not only the data but the process used to generate the data. It is because of independently researched results that we do not have the N-ray proposed by Prosper-René Blondlot. It is an interesting study of how science is self correcting when presented with data that does not support the claims being made.No it doesn't. That is why the independent replication of the claims is crucial in determining the what is true and what is not. In the case of the N-ray for a while people thought it might be a new discovery. However, Blondlot had made some errors. I am sure this must have been covered in at least one of your science classes. It i a great example of how research works. If not this case perhaps Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_rayskepdic.com/blondlot.htmlIt is not science that is the authority it is the data that supports the claims, even after being subject to scrutiny. The supporting data and the methodology to determine its veracity so it does not fall into a situation like the unsupported claims made, for example, by creationists.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 11:56:26 GMT -5
No. Data is not an authority unto itself. He was referred to in star trek. He was not the captain.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2016 18:11:30 GMT -5
Nope. .
It is the method which science uses that makes it a reliable method of knowing something. It certainly beats relying on gods or any other supernatural or paranormal ideas! The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.
The above makes it self-correcting.
PS: How do you see science as an "appeal being to something greater than us?" Aren't you the one who "appeals to something greater than you?" (god and other supernatural or paranormal ideas) We see the results of the conclusions which follows that method . Thousands of different gods & different denominations even within the supposedly one true god! And theres lots of scientists whose idea dont pan out. Scientitism treats science as if it were an authority unto itself. This is an act of worship. Atheists and theists should resist this tendency together, if for no other reason, because its duplicitous. Lee, spell and define your "seeming" erudite* word "Scientism." (*erudite: having or containing a lot of knowledge that is known by very few people)
Scientism: "Scientism is the view that only scientific claims are meaningful. The term is often widely abused as a term to refer to science and attitudes associated with science, and its primary use these days is as a pejorative,... a general-purpose "snarl " word, ... wiki
The word "Scientism," is used by a person who wants to sound knowledgible," -yet, is only using the term because it is a pejorative term showing a lack of respect for Science. A "snarl" term?
So who is really being duplicitous? (deceiving)
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 18:46:55 GMT -5
I did. Its treating science like it were an authority unto itself.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2016 22:07:47 GMT -5
I did. Its treating science like it were an authority unto itself. You did, Lee, -but not in the way the term Scientism is used by you & others today in an attempt to disparage science. Scientism, as a term, -is often widely abused as a term to refer to science in a pejorative manner.
That is the way that you are using the term.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2016 23:59:41 GMT -5
Thats because people treat science as if it were an authority.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 21, 2016 0:39:35 GMT -5
Thats because people treat science as if it were an authority. Rational has explained that to you very well. People who really know the methods & process of how science operates by following the data of which is already known, do not "worship" science as the "authority" that you are claiming.
We don't even "worship" the method & process. We just recognize science is the best way to finding answers that are applicable and can be reproduced.
What I believe is the real problem with you is that science hasn't given you the affirmation which you desperately want which is to affirm your belief that there is a god.
You need science and recognize it's value to you personally as well as for humanity in general, but you also want your belief of a god to mesh with science!
When science doesn't mesh with your belief of a god, because it can't and maintain any credibility, -you disparage science but never question your belief in a god.
It is that split between them that causes dissonance in thinking and leads to angst.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 21, 2016 1:12:42 GMT -5
Thats a preferable state to believing science is an authority.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 21, 2016 2:04:41 GMT -5
That's a preferable state to believing science is an authority. Well Lee, you will just have to continue mix up religion & science into whatever brew that keeps you happy!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 21, 2016 11:57:44 GMT -5
Speaking of science like it has four legs and five senses is not just a rhetorical improvisation. It refects the worshipful importance moderns place on power and utility. Thus we say science does this and science does that. Baloney. Science doesnt do anything of its own. We do things for better or worse using the tools at our disposal. Any sensible person assumes we are in charge and responsible.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 21, 2016 23:09:13 GMT -5
Speaking of science like it has four legs and five senses is not just a rhetorical improvisation. It refects the worshipful importance moderns place on power and utility. Thus we say science does this and science does that. Baloney. Science doesnt do anything of its own. We do things for better or worse using the tools at our disposal. Any sensible person assumes we are in charge and responsible. Oh come off it Lee! Who is treating science "like it has four legs and five senses?"
That sounds more as if it is you are the one attributing human qualities to science; certainly not scientists themselves.
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 22, 2016 3:40:38 GMT -5
Speaking of science like it has four legs and five senses is not just a rhetorical improvisation. It refects the worshipful importance moderns place on power and utility. Thus we say science does this and science does that. Baloney. Science doesnt do anything of its own. We do things for better or worse using the tools at our disposal. Any sensible person assumes we are in charge and responsible. Oh come off it Lee! Who is treating science "like it has four legs and five senses?"
That sounds more as if it is you are the one attributing human qualities to science; certainly not scientists themselves.
Hmmm, what about people that say things like , science shows us that the earth is billions of years old ? Shouldn't they rather say, like they believe the interpretation of what they are observing,. We all interpret our observation in private thinking .
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 22, 2016 9:10:33 GMT -5
Hmmm, what about people that say things like , science shows us that the earth is billions of years old ? They generally have the data and verifiable evidence to back up their claim. In essence they do until others arrive at the same conclusion. Of course when someone is still trying to find support for a much younger earth and the study of the speed of radioactive decay makes the premise impossible the following if offered as a solution: " Simply put, at the same moment God accelerated radioisotope decay, he also expanded the size of the universe twenty-fold."
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 22, 2016 10:01:22 GMT -5
Hmmm, what about people that say things like , science shows us that the earth is billions of years old ? They generally have the data and verifiable evidence to back up their claim. In essence they do until others arrive at the same conclusion. Of course when someone is still trying to find support for a much younger earth and the study of the speed of radioactive decay makes the premise impossible the following if offered as a solution: " Simply put, at the same moment God accelerated radioisotope decay, he also expanded the size of the universe twenty-fold." Thus science is an entity that "shows" something? Science has been observed and interpreted in accord of the observer. Either from an evolutionist view or information input view. Right now it appears truth Isn't as important as it use to be. IMO
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 22, 2016 10:12:16 GMT -5
They generally have the data and verifiable evidence to back up their claim. In essence they do until others arrive at the same conclusion. Of course when someone is still trying to find support for a much younger earth and the study of the speed of radioactive decay makes the premise impossible the following if offered as a solution: " Simply put, at the same moment God accelerated radioisotope decay, he also expanded the size of the universe twenty-fold." Thus science is an entity that "shows" something? No, it was the people you mentioned in your post. Right now the data supports the evolutionary view. If you had any data at all to show differently it would be a welcome change from your usual posts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 22, 2016 13:38:12 GMT -5
Oh come off it Lee! Who is treating science "like it has four legs and five senses?"
That sounds more as if it is you are the one attributing human qualities to science; certainly not scientists themselves.
Hmmm, what about people that say things like , science shows us that the earth is billions of years old ?Shouldn't they rather say, like they believe the interpretation of what they are observing,. We all interpret our observation in private thinking . Would this change in the sentence cause you to believe it if it were stated that, "...scientific evidence indicates that the earth is billions of years old?" I doubt it.
In spite of the scientific developments through out centuries that have made your life safer, easier: -people simply don't want to see the evidence of evolution because it upsets their idea that mankind is the most important center of the universe.
There have been a couple of observations in the history of mankind that has caused people a lot of denial and distress.
1st. was when scientific evidence showed that our earth was NOT the center of the universe: that the planets and sun did NOT circle the earth but rather that we were just one of the planets all of which circled the sun.
(After a lot of jumping up & down and getting red in the face and shaking our collective fists at that scientific evidence, we had to admit it was true.)
2nd. was when scientific evidence showed that mankind was NOT the center of life on the earth but rather only a link in that chain.
How insufferable!
It was also the realization that we aren't the ones in control of finding the answers; through asking ourselves or our 'GOD.'
But rather it though the unbiased, unemotional, 'cold' calulations of a method !
A method over which we have no control except to just follow where the evidence leads! How humiliating! At least with our gods, we could make them to do what we wanted!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 22, 2016 14:58:33 GMT -5
Humans are still self-centered and science is the new messiah, only this messiah promises to plunge mnakind into new depths of self-centeredness. For if the object of science is to control, mankind will cease to have a soul to be inspired or reproved. He will be reduced to a mere will, an animal.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 22, 2016 19:21:17 GMT -5
Humans are still self-centered and science is the new messiah, only this messiah promises to plunge mnakind into new depths of self-centeredness. Oh, I agree with you, Lee, mankind is self-centered.
That is the reason they got their knickers in such a twist when they found that the little ball of dirt on which they resided was NOT after all the center of the universe! And then... and then, with the reality of evolution of life, -horrors! -they found that they didn't occupy the special place that they had thought was theirs alone!
Messiah? There was never any messiah that existed. (except in their minds) There is no NEW messiah coming either.
Mankind is on it's own. There is no "messiah" that is going to ride up on any white steed, lance in hand & save them from all the dragons that besets them. The realization that have to rely on themselves is what scares them to the point that they keep running back to their 'gods.'
|
|
|
Post by commonman on Mar 22, 2016 20:43:43 GMT -5
I will review a book written by Allan Bloom, "The closing of the American Mind."
It seems that knowledge and wisdom have been held captive , by the will of people that are suffering from hopelessness and narrowmindedness. IMO. Hmmmmm , interesting Book.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 0:43:10 GMT -5
I hear the book referred to a lot. My dad read and recommended it.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 0:56:12 GMT -5
I guess if the Church had to be dogmatic about the earth in its day, sooner or later someone would be dogmatic about the messiah. Science is ringed with a kind of halo today, I dont make that up. To reference something absolute yet impersonal is Deism. This, from atheists of all people. The ancients were probably more appreciative of geography than we are. How many people exist in the orbit of their work and a handful of commercial enterprises? How many know the earth spins on its axis making the sun appear to cross the sky? Who looks at the stars today? The ancients did. They could pick out the stars that were fixed from the planets that werent. The universe was alive then with promise, mystery, and majesty.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 23, 2016 1:58:40 GMT -5
Science is ringed with a kind of halo today, I dont make that up. Yep, I think you probably did make that up, Lee!
Perhaps science is "ringed with a kind of halo" to you because you don't seem yet to have the foggiest what science is all about.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Mar 23, 2016 2:14:58 GMT -5
Lee the descriptions and attitude you have towards science seem to filter through the thought processes you apply in your religious mindset. It impresses that you either cannot, or refuse to free yourself from the impact of religion. Hence it reads as if you are blurring the two entities of science and religion, and you therefore contextualise science within the familiar parameters you use when considering religion. This is not surprising. I recall how my attitude and thinking was so deeply embedded in, and conformed with, the patterns imposed by years of exposure to the truth claims made by workers in the 2x2 group. Despite my innate skepticism towards these claims; it took me years to entirely free myself from the strong hold the indoctrination process had imposed. Our human brains are fragile, and religion thrives on the tendency for us to be so easily deceived.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 23, 2016 2:30:13 GMT -5
Its crossed my mind your atheism and attitude towards theists may be related to your experiences as well. Why do we refer to science as a category of its own, as opposed to the specific sciences say of history or physics? Why does the word science arouse something globular in the mind today, something larger than life? What is it about science thats all-important?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Mar 23, 2016 2:50:49 GMT -5
For a person to view science as something larger than life reveals they are feeling threatened by it. Science is merely a generic term. Certainly the branches of science may be acknowledged when relevant.
Yes, my life experiences definitely impact my attitude towards religion. Having freed myself from the control of a faith-based belief, I can compare the contrasting mindsets between the one which previously suppressed my capacity to reason (a capacity shared by the majority of humans), and the other which enables the freedom to source information which can be proven.
|
|