Faith and Science

[hecd2]

Seems to me, Dawkins can be deduced by reading the book
“Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker.

This may be easier to read than trying to find his findings or a textbook. Besides this paperback is a lot cheaper.

Seems to me that you’d get a very skewed and totally incomplete view of Dawkins’s very significant contribution to biology by reading a book attempting to refute his atheism. And it certainly wouldn’t tell you one way or the other whether he states that there is no God in his scientific papers, which he does not. And you’d miss out on some of the most interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable.

Try The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker or the Ancestor’s Tale.

Of course he lays out his case for atheism in The God Delusion, but that is specifically not a science text.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[StAnastasia]

The fact of the matter is that the International Gravity Formula accounts for the deviation from uniformity of the acceleration due to … the centrifugal force caused by the rotation of the earth. Alec

Wait a minute, Alec – are you saying that the earth rotates on its axis? Cassini has told us this is impossible. Will you next be telling me it is not a flat pancake supported by pillars around the sides? Will you then go on to tell me there is not enough water to flood the earth to a depth of 29,035 feet as in the days of Noah?

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

When one has to resort to meaningless rhetoric as I find on this forum too, I assume there are none capable of debating at an intellectual level.

 

[StAnastasia]

I submitted that only one paradigm, the H one is now considered as science, whereas the other G one is eliminated as true science. Thus there are two paradigms of science, one GODLESS the other (Geocentricism) as GOD science. Most replies have denied this. Let readers be the judge.

Cassini, you misunderstand what science is. Neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism are “science.” Both are mental frameworks within which aspects of reality have been studied by the scientific method. This method has led us to conclude that geocentrism is incorrect, and that it has been superseded by another perspective. This supersession happens all the time in science.

If you believe the Holy Spirit dictates science, then either the Holy Spirit in in serious error in continuing to champion geocentrism, or you misunderstadn theology far more significantly than we know you misunderstand science.

StAnastasia,

 

[StAnastasia]

When one has to resort to meaningless rhetoric as I find on this forum too, I assume there are none capable of debating at an intellectual level.

I fear it is beyond you, when you have to resort to contemning others.

 

[cassini]

Cassini, you misunderstand what science is. Neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism are “science.” Both are mental frameworks within which aspects of reality have been studied by the scientific method. This method has led us to conclude that geocentrism is incorrect, and that it has been superseded by another perspective. This supersession happens all the time in science.

If you believe the Holy Spirit dictates science, then either the Holy Spirit in in serious error in continuing to champion geocentrism, or you misunderstadn theology far more significantly than we know you misunderstand science.

StAnastasia,

StA, I do know what science is. But at least I recognise that science has limits. I am tired telling you that because of the relativity of space, there is no scientific method of telling if the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun. Let us not move one inch past this fact recognised by all sane people today who are aware of this phenemenon.

Now here is the first hurdle all you earthmovers have to answer before you can present your so-called proofs. How can you all say you have proof that the earth moves if no such proof is possible?

 

[grannymh]

Seems to me that you’d get a very skewed and totally incomplete view of Dawkins’s very significant contribution to biology by reading a book attempting to refute his atheism. And it certainly wouldn’t tell you one way or the other whether he states that there is no God in his scientific papers, which he does not. And you’d miss out on some of the most interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable.

Try The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker or the Ancestor’s Tale.

Of course he lays out his case for atheism in The God Delusion, but that is specifically not a science text.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Very good comeback Refering to the book: “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”

I was totally surprised when the book referenced “Climbing Mount Improbable” and The Blind Watchmaker". There might have been an indirect reference to “The Selfish Gene” when the book was exploring the theory of chance.

Authors Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker did indicate up front that they were skipping Dawkins’ rhetoric and were meeting him on his turf. You would be a better qualified reader than me.

Your sentence about “interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable.” was on my mind at the end of the book. Since I am a very curious person, I was considering reading “The Blind Watchmaker”

Question: In what order should I read your above suggestions?

Note: I’m glad that you explained that “The God Delusion” is specifically not a scientific text.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[grannymh]

Seems to me that you’d get a very skewed and totally incomplete view of Dawkins’s very significant contribution to biology by reading a book attempting to refute his atheism. And it certainly wouldn’t tell you one way or the other whether he states that there is no God in his scientific papers, which he does not. And you’d miss out on some of the most interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable.

Try The Selfish Gene, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden, The Blind Watchmaker or the Ancestor’s Tale.

Of course he lays out his case for atheism in The God Delusion, but that is specifically not a science text.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Dear Alec,

Very good comeback
Referring to the book: “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God”

I was totally surprised when the book referenced “Climbing Mount Improbable” and the Blind Watchmaker". There might have been an indirect reference to “The Selfish Gene” when the book was exploring the theory of chance.

Authors Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker did indicate up front that they were skipping Dawkins’ rhetoric and were meeting him on his turf. You would be a better qualified reader than me.

Your sentence about “interesting, insightful and entertaining science writing imaginable” was somewhat the thought on my mind at the end of the book. Since I’m more curious than a cat, I was especially interested in “The Blind Watchmaker”.

Question: In which order should I read your suggested books above?

Note: I’m so glad that you explained above that “The God Delusion,” is specifically not a science text.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[buffalo]

Cassini, you misunderstand what science is. Neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism are “science.” Both are mental frameworks within which aspects of reality have been studied by the scientific method. This method has led us to conclude that geocentrism is incorrect, and that it has been superseded by another perspective. This supersession happens all the time in science.

If you believe the Holy Spirit dictates science, then either the Holy Spirit in in serious error in continuing to champion geocentrism, or you misunderstadn theology far more significantly than we know you misunderstand science.

StAnastasia,

Geocentrism has indeed been ruled out. I believe he is speaking of modern day geocentricity.

 

[neophyte]

…The bedrock of this science can be traced back to the heretical Heliocentricism…

Oh, no… not THIS nonsense again.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I have lightly skimmed this thread and find it worthwhile to point out cassini’s intention is to discredit the Catholic Church’s infallible nature on issues of faith or morals. I hashed the Gallileo issue with him thoroughly in this other thread. Just skim for his or my posts there so you will be familiar with what took place regarding the Gallileo incident.

 

[The_Barbarian]

StA, I do know what science is. But at least I recognise that science has limits.

This is true, but you seem to have not idea what those limits are. That you think science is about “proofs” is evidence enough you don’t know what it is.

I am tired telling you that because of the relativity of space, there is no scientific method of telling if the sun orbits the earth or the earth orbits the sun.

It’s not “relativity.” It’s merely the observation that one’s velocity depends on a specified reference point.

Let’s start with the rotation of the Earth. If the Earth is fixed, and not rotating, there’s a huge problem explaining why a satellite is launched with less energy at the equator than at higher latitudes. The scientific explanation is that the speed of the Earth’s rotation is faster at the equator, and therefore the launched vehicle adds that speed to it’s speed with respect to the ground in getting to escape velocity. From where does this additional velocity come, and what is your evidence for it?

Likewise, the Coriolis Effect, which could only happen if the Earth was moving, or if Newton’s First Law was wrong, confirms the rotation of the Earth. Prevailing winds turn at precisely the rate and direction one would expect, if the Earth was rotating.

And every Focault pendulum clearly refutes the notion of an unmoving Earth. You would not see the change in pendumlum path in that case, unless you posit some magical force moving it in defiance of Newton’s laws.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA, I do know what science is. But at least I recognise that science has limits…

Now here is the first hurdle all you earthmovers have to answer before you can present your so-called proofs. How can you all say you have proof that the earth moves if no such proof is possible?

Cassini, science doesn’t “prove” things; it falsifies some hypotheses and forces others to be continually refined. Geocentrism was falsified long ago, leaving…

StAnastasia

 

[cassini]

Oh, no… not THIS nonsense again.

See, more rhetoric. That is not debate. This is a thread for serious exchange, there is no room for smart Alecs. OK.

 

[cassini]

I have lightly skimmed this thread and find it worthwhile to point out cassini’s intention is to discredit the Catholic Church’s infallible nature on issues of faith or morals. I hashed the Gallileo issue with him thoroughly in this other thread. Just skim for his or my posts there so you will be familiar with what took place regarding the Gallileo incident.

Marco, quite the opposite. My only interest in this subject is to protect the Church’s infallibility from you misguided Copernicans. I keep telling you the 1616 decree was papal, defined and declared a matter of faith, was declared ‘immutable’ by another pope Urban VII, and was confirmed as papal and unreformable by Pope Pius VII in 1820. My thesis is that the Church cannot err in such papal decrees, so I am defending the accusation that it was in error, a contention that you and all Copernicans hold. So please do not accuse me of trying to discredit the CHURCH in any way. The trouble is that to defend the CHURCH I have to discredit those Churchmen, who like yourself, conceded that the Church was wrong.

So far I haven’t found one reader even willing to think TWICE about it. Am I on a Catholioc forum or an anti-Catholic forum. Does it not bother anybody that their Church has been found guilty of such error, declaring false heresies, finding innocent men guilty, and interfering in the progress of science,

I say and defend the stand that they did NOT do any of those things becausae IT (the Church) is protected from doing such things. But what do i find on ‘Catholioc’ threads, people who prefer to defend the errors and make jokes about it.

 

[cassini]

This is true, but you seem to have not idea what those limits are. That you think science is about “proofs” is evidence enough you don’t know what it is.

.

When I read nonsense like this in the midst of a debate in which geocentricism is supposed to have been falsified and the Church ridiculed for centuries on the basis that heliocentricism is proven by various forces and star positions, I despair.

 

[StAnastasia]

When I read nonsense like this in the midst of a debate in which geocentricism is supposed to have been falsified and the Church ridiculed for centuries on the basis that heliocentricism is proven by various forces and star positions, I despair.

Since when has the Church been ridiculed for its acceptance of heliocentrism?

 

[buffalo]

Since when has the Church been ridiculed for its acceptance of heliocentrism?

Perhpas when science found out that the sun wasn’t the center of the universe.

 

[cassini]

Cassini, science doesn’t “prove” things; it falsifies some hypotheses and forces others to be continually refined. Geocentrism was falsified long ago, leaving…

StAnastasia

OK StA, I have heard this philosophical argument before even from Hawking himself. In his area of theory it certainly applies and in it applies in the matter of H or G, But I do not accept it in other areas where science can prove many things (ever watch CSI Miami?).

As regards falsifications of G well barbarian has listed a few of them hasn’t he. In all cases of inertial forces on earth, even Mach and Einstein have admitted that a geocentric frame of reference will give the same inertial forces - if these forces are caused by either a rotating earth or rotating universe in the first place - who knows, you and Barbi and Marco?.

Indeed the only true scientific falsifications that I know of were of H, I speak of the Airy experiment and the M&M test of 1887. Both denied the movement of the earth.

 

[cassini]

When I read nonsense like this in the midst of a debate in which geocentricism is supposed to have been falsified and the Church ridiculed for centuries on the basis that heliocentricism is proven by various forces and star positions, I despair.

Since when has the Church been ridiculed for its acceptance of heliocentrism?

I read 'the Church ridiculed for centuries on the basis that heliocentricism is proven’so where do you get ‘Since when has the Church been ridiculed for its acceptance of heliocentrism?’