Hiding in science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cat_Herder said:
Case in point: each planet is a beautiful and unique creation. Therefore destroying a planet is evil…
Click to expand...
If I tiptoe into this sci-fi world and an uninhabited planet is hurtling towards Earth, is destroying it to save our planet still objectively evil, or is there an equally objective get-out clause?
 
tonyrey said:
Not one of these facts is discovered by science!
Click to expand...
The only fact in that list is “The chips in our computers work because there is truth in quantum theory.” The rest are just value judgments – beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

It’s a scientific fact, confirmed experimentally, that no one on this thread is saying that science just propagates falsehoods, as anyone with any integrity who thinks that would obviously rid their life of all its sinful products, including their computer and internet connection. 🙂

If you are just saying that science limits itself to objective reality, in the same way that theology has never produced a laptop or thought of a way to eradicate smallpox, then fine. But if you want natural science or any other discipline to be your only source of truth then isn’t that expecting a little too much?
 
inocente said:
The only fact in that list is “The chips in our computers work because there is truth in quantum theory.” The rest are just value judgments – beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
So you believe we just imagine the reality of goodness, freedom, beauty and love?
If you are just saying that science limits itself to objective reality, in the same way that theology has never produced a laptop or thought of a way to eradicate smallpox, then fine. But if you want natural science or any other discipline to be your only source of truth then isn’t that expecting a little too much?
Click to expand...
I am pointing out that science is an** inadequate **source of knowlege.
 
tonyrey said:
So you believe we just imagine the reality of goodness, freedom, beauty and love?
Click to expand...
They are subjective (beauty really is in the eye of the beholder), it doesn’t make them less real to us.
I am pointing out that science is an** inadequate **source of knowlege.
Click to expand...
Science was adequate to produce a laptop and find a way to eradicate smallpox. There are various sources of knowledge and they all have limits.
 
inocente said:
So you believe we just imagine the reality of goodness, freedom, beauty and love?
Click to expand...
Yes, indeed, but then they exist only in our minds. What happens to them when we die? And do our concepts of them have anything in common with others’ concepts?
I am pointing out that science is an inadequate source of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Science was adequate to produce a laptop and find a way to eradicate smallpox. There are various sources of knowledge and they all have limits.
Click to expand...

What is ultimately the most important form of knowledge?
Click to expand...
 
tonyrey said:
Yes, indeed, but then they exist only in our minds. What happens to them when we die?
Click to expand...
An atheist will say that our thoughts die with us and we say different. You and I may say that God provides absolute standards of goodness and love, but once we get into detail we’ll find we disagree on some of the fine points if only because “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror” – 1 Cor 13:12. These things are outside the realm of science but that doesn’t make them any less real, they’re just subjective is all.
And do our concepts of them have anything in common with others’ concepts?
Click to expand...
Yes, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to talk about them.
What is ultimately the most important form of knowledge?
Click to expand...
Is there one? I mean if you’re intent on learning about Mars then astronomy, building a bridge then engineering, building a community then history (so you don’t repeat old mistakes), or if you’re teaching morals then the NT is a fine place to start.
 
inocente said:
If I tiptoe into this sci-fi world and an uninhabited planet is hurtling towards Earth, is destroying it to save our planet still objectively evil, or is there an equally objective get-out clause?
Click to expand...
Your only choices are:

Destroy planet = evil
Destroy Earth (a planet) and all life on it) = evil + evil

This is a double effect situation. Since the choice is between evil and more evil, and there is no alternative, you would have to destroy the uninhabited planet.
 
AntiTheist said:
The Big Bang demonstrates nothing of the kind.

The Big Bang is evidence of the Big Bang. It tells us nothing about what caused it or whether “cause” is even the right word to be using.
Click to expand...
Congratulations! You have admitted that science is not able to explain all physically observable phenomena, and in so doing, you have proven the irrationality of atheism and liquidated your own atheistic position. 😃
 
Cat_Herder said:
This is a double effect situation. Since the choice is between evil and more evil, and there is no alternative, you would have to destroy the uninhabited planet.
Click to expand...
Did Aquinas intend two wrongs to make a right, or for the ends to justify the means?

Personally, I’d just observe that scientifically there are probably gazillions of uninhabited planets in the universe and then use scientific knowledge to work out the best way to solve the problem. Oops, there I go again, hiding in science to prevent the end of humanity. 😛
 
inocente said:
Yes, indeed, but then they exist only in our minds. What happens to them when we die?
Click to expand...
What counts is the fact that we agree on fundamentals and that values are not fictions. 🙂
And do our concepts of them have anything in common with others’ concepts?
Click to expand...
Yes, because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to talk about them.
Click to expand...

So they must be objective as well as subjective…
What is ultimately the most important form of knowledge?
Click to expand...
Is there one? I mean if you’re intent on learning about Mars then astronomy, building a bridge then engineering, building a community then history (so you don’t repeat old mistakes), or if you’re teaching morals then the NT is a fine place to start.
Click to expand...

And to finish! “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away…”
Love is ultimately the most important form of knowledge…
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
Did Aquinas intend two wrongs to make a right, or for the ends to justify the means?
Click to expand...
Neither.
Personally, I’d just observe that scientifically there are probably gazillions of uninhabited planets in the universe and then use scientific knowledge to work out the best way to solve the problem. Oops, there I go again, hiding in science to prevent the end of humanity. 😛
Click to expand...
Join the club.
 
Cat_Herder said:
Congratulations! You have admitted that science is not able to explain all physically observable phenomena
Click to expand...
Sure. Anyone with half a brain will admit that people don’t have all the answers yet. Maybe we one day will have more answers, but perhaps we never will be able to crack some of the questions surrounding origins.
and in so doing, you have proven the irrationality of atheism and liquidated your own atheistic position. 😃
Click to expand...
No, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve simply acknowledged that people don’t know everything, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain.

The fact that people don’t know everything is one of the reasons that I’m an atheist – when faced with the fact that we don’t know much about the origin of the universe, I don’t see any good reason to say, “We know that the cause of the universe is a god.” You’re just assuming that that statement is true, plugging in your favorite myth to fill the gap in our knowledge.

I find it far more honest and satisfying to simply admit that we don’t know.
 
tonyrey said:
So they must be objective as well as subjective…
Click to expand...
If I love vanilla ice cream and you love strawberry then I guess we could explain it by finding out scientifically how our brains are wired slightly differently, but somehow I think you have something else in mind… 🙂
Love is ultimately the most important form of knowledge…
Click to expand...
And of course, by revelation, one of the things science can’t do.
 
inocente said:
If I love vanilla ice cream and you love strawberry then I guess we could explain it by finding out scientifically how our brains are wired slightly differently, but somehow I think you have something else in mind… 🙂
Click to expand...
Do you believe all human behaviour is explicable in principle by the way our brains are wired?
And of course, by revelation, one of the things science can’t do.
Click to expand...
Is that an asset or a liability? 🙂
 
AntiTheist said:
Sure. Anyone with half a brain will admit that people don’t have all the answers yet. **Maybe we one day will have more answers, **
Click to expand...
faith |fāθ|
noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something : this restores one’s faith in politicians. – New Oxford American Dictionary
but perhaps we never will be able to crack some of the questions surrounding origins.
No, I’ve done nothing of the sort. I’ve simply acknowledged that people don’t know everything, which is obvious to anyone with half a brain.
Click to expand...
The fact that people don’t know everything is one of the reasons that I’m an atheist – when faced with the fact that we don’t know much about the origin of the universe, I don’t see any good reason to say, “We know that the cause of the universe is a god.” [personal attack deleted] I find it far more honest and satisfying to simply admit that we don’t know.
Click to expand...
agnostic |agˈnästik|
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. – same dictionary
 
traillius said:
some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
" there is no biological proof that this piece of sandstone is sedimentary, therefore it cannot possibly be sedimentary. "
Click to expand...
I have no problems with science as long as it’s used to explain in matters of mathematics or proven theories… Its when we attempt to mix science* into *philosophy that we come accross problems. Science is the use of measurements to explain things we do know… Philosophy cannot be explained by science alone.

Its like someone asking where thought comes from and someone tries to claim it comes from tissue and blood… That may be partly correct but very incomplete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top