Should science be secular?

[buffalo]

And if he doesn’t exist then it isn’t. Given that there’s no evidence for his existence, then the sensible thing is to proceed as if he doesn’t exist, to avoid tainting the scientific conclusion with unnecessary conjecture.

Your baseless supposition is a prime example of faulty reasoning.

However, whether or not one assumes an ‘ultimate truth’ is irrelevant - such considerations are outside the realm of scientific discovery. If one has to posit a supernatural explanation for any aspect of scientific endeavour, then that endeavour is no longer scientific. Science deals with acquisition of objective knowledge, not of subjective conjecture.

There is plenty of evidence that God exists. You are mixing up evidence and proof. You just do not accept the evidence.

Illuminating our reasoning with truth is not necessarily calling upon a supernatural explanation. It is applying our reasoning to our empirical observations with the underpinning of truth to secure the foundations that we build upon.

Science has painted itself in a corner by insisting that the only reasoning allowed is man’s reasoning. Now if we are only dependent on our 'evolving" selves, (we will get better with time) then much of today’s scientific reasoning is not worth even discussing for it will be overturned in the future as our reasoning capabilities get better. Why bother?

Now if our reasoning is illuminated by truth we can depend on this today and in the future.

Is your claim science should not be interested in the truth?

 

[wanstronian]

Nor did I mean to imply that was your point. It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition that a scientist be religious to do good science. However, to gain maximum satisfaction out of doing science, one should, I believe, have a faith in a universal order that is instituted by some Higher Power.

But this is a stance that is a result of your religious belief. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it has no bearing on the objective value of scientific discovery, particularly as there’s no evidence that “why” is even a valid question.

I think that faith in a “universal order” (in other words, consistency of natural effects throughout the universe) is important to science - otherwise its predictive power is threatened… but I don’t believe this necessitates a “Higher Power.”

What is the point, otherwise, of trying to understand what the universe is all about–just monkey curiousity? I don’t think so.

I don’t know what “monkey” curiosity is, but yes, I believe that the acquisition of knowledge is driven by curiosity (and in many cases, a desire to make the world a better place) and the satisfaction of knowledge acquired/technology improved/lives benefited.

When I was younger I wanted to know how an internal combustion engine worked. I was curious; it would help me fix my car when it went wrong; it would help me help others. I had no reason to suppose there was some ineffable reason for an internal combustion engine to work the way it does. I continue to seek knowledge in areas that interest me, without any supposition of an overarching “why.” This does not diminish my desire to learn, nor my satisfaction when I understand.

Why should science in general be any different?

Historians of science argue that science developed from a culture with Judeo-Christian values because in that culture–the Middle Ages–there was this belief in an ordered world ordained by God.

Do they argue for that specific causation? No matter - I can believe it - but that doesn’t mean that modern-day science is driven by the same motivation. Indeed, there are many (most? don’t know the numbers) non-religious scientists working in the world today - so how can the motivation for science be religious in nature?

Where there was no such belief (e.g.as with the Chinese) even in a culture with high technological achievements, science would not develop. That was, in fact, the point of the Einstein quote.

Yet in an increasingly secular world, science is developing and advancing. It is not being driven by religious curiosity.

You seem to be basing your argument in the fact that ‘modern’ science developed in a religious culture (big surprise - all cultures were religious at that time), and your personal belief that there is a underlying intent for the universe and its natural laws.

 

[wanstronian]

There is plenty of evidence that God exists. You are mixing up evidence and proof. You just do not accept the evidence.

The ‘evidence’ does not meet the standard required to substantiate the claims being made. The ‘evidence’ is akin to me claiming my cat can fly, then providing a sketch I drew of it flying around as ‘evidence’ that it happened. Not good enough, by a long way.

Illuminating our reasoning with truth is not necessarily calling upon a supernatural explanation. It is applying our reasoning to our empirical observations with the underpinning of truth to secure the foundations that we build upon.

How do we know what the truth is? How can we prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

Science has painted itself in a corner by insisting that the only reasoning allowed is man’s reasoning. Now if we are only dependent on our 'evolving" selves, (we will get better with time) then much of today’s scientific reasoning is not worth even discussing for it will be overturned in the future as our reasoning capabilities get better. Why bother?

This is an insensible argument. Yes, we’ll get better at reasoning. Even ignoring the fact that we’ll only get better by practicing, our improved ability to reason is unlikely to overturn all the knowledge we have already derived. Do you think we’ll revert to geo-centricity, or have we got that one nailed now?

That said, one of the strengths of science is its amenability to improvement and even overturning of theories, based on improved evidence. To say “Let’s not bother now” just completely misses the point.

Science doesn’t “insist” on only using man’s reasoning - but we have no access to any other reasoning. This is not painting itself into a corner, it’s a rational approach to take if we are to arrive at independent, objective conclusions. You may not like that science doesn’t need religion, but that’s not a reason to start belittling science.

Now if our reasoning is illuminated by truth we can depend on this today and in the future.

So I say again - what’s the truth? How do we know it’s the truth? How do we use this ‘truth’ to inform our scientific endeavours? Do tell.

Is your claim science should not be interested in the truth?

No - far from it, what a petulant comment. Science can’t provide the absolute truth about everything - nothing can. What science can do, as long as it’s not infused with religion or other superstition, is provide the best available objective explanation of our environment.

If you disagree, please post an example of how religion makes a scientific theory of your choice, objectively more valuable. Even better, please post a scientific theory that relies on religious doctrine at some point, and show how this theory is superior to one that doesn’t.

 

[buffalo]

The ‘evidence’ does not meet the standard required to substantiate the claims being made. The ‘evidence’ is akin to me claiming my cat can fly, then providing a sketch I drew of it flying around as ‘evidence’ that it happened. Not good enough, by a long way.

How do we know what the truth is? How can we prove it beyond reasonable doubt?

This is an insensible argument. Yes, we’ll get better at reasoning. Even ignoring the fact that we’ll only get better by practicing, our improved ability to reason is unlikely to overturn all the knowledge we have already derived. Do you think we’ll revert to geo-centricity, or have we got that one nailed now?

That said, one of the strengths of science is its amenability to improvement and even overturning of theories, based on improved evidence. To say “Let’s not bother now” just completely misses the point.

Science doesn’t “insist” on only using man’s reasoning - but we have no access to any other reasoning. This is not painting itself into a corner, it’s a rational approach to take if we are to arrive at independent, objective conclusions. You may not like that science doesn’t need religion, but that’s not a reason to start belittling science.

So I say again - what’s the truth? How do we know it’s the truth? How do we use this ‘truth’ to inform our scientific endeavours? Do tell.

No - far from it, what a petulant comment. Science can’t provide the absolute truth about everything - nothing can. What science can do, as long as it’s not infused with religion or other superstition, is provide the best available objective explanation of our environment.

If you disagree, please post an example of how religion makes a scientific theory of your choice, objectively more valuable. Even better, please post a scientific theory that relies on religious doctrine at some point, and show how this theory is superior to one that doesn’t.

The evidence is fine and meets the tests. Proposing your cat can fly? - again I believe you need to inform yourself, where it came from and why it is reliable.

Bingo - How do we know what the truth is? We cannot not know unless we receive information from outside out frame. We need a reference point if you will.

I didn’t say it would overturn all knowledge. It won’t. It won’t overturn history. It won’t overturn Revelation. It will definitely overturn some science. (already has)

Question - how do we know we have the foundations of scientific reasoning correct? Is there a way to know?

We know truth from Revelation, which comes from outside our frame.

My claim is science needs a truthful bearing or it will result in false conclusions. It is irrational to restrict scientific reasoning. It does not result in independent objective reasoning. There is no reference point.

Modern science has an a priori bias about keeping Revelation out of its reasoning.

I have a proposal.

On the same empirical data reason using no objective truth and another line using objective truth. Over time the answer should be clear.

Since taxpayers fund much scientific research they should be assured the reasoning is correct and provides an honest return. If the reasoning process does not assure them then those involved are simply raping taxpayers to promote their own worldview.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

True. I believe the same thing BUT in the secular world there are different religions, buffalo. Secular scientists can’t start an experiment and use religion to inform the outcomes or theories. It’s absurd. Secular science is just that, proving what is visible and observable and recordable. They’re not out to prove the existence of Christ or the saints or miracles, etc. They measure and study what is visible and knowable. There is no need or point to throwing religion into it.

As a teacher I cannot throw my Catholicism on kids who are baptists, mormons, presbyterians, non-denoms, atheists, buddhists and the like. I can only witness my faith through my actions. We don’t live in a theocracy, ask the founding fathers. Science is separate from religion and should remain that way. Watching popes get all upset and frazzled over heliocentrism, etc. should give us plenty of reason to keep them OUT…

If God is absolute truth, then everything that exists is a subset of this one total truth.

If something is true in science then it flows from this one total truth. Science cannot be effectively reasoned outside this. When it attempts to do so the reasoning is faulty.

 

[TheAtheist]

Greetings everybody - i’ve been a way for a while and i’m unfortunately going to probably miss the next week’s worth of responses but…

Do they argue for that specific causation?

Wanstronian. Yes they do. Just to let everyone know, i’m **very **touchy about the use/misuse of cases in the history of science since every single polemicist from Richard Dawkins to Dinesh D’Souza wants to say “Ohh Religion has been BAD/GOOD for Science!”

When every single professional trained historian of science i’ve ever known has given the more common sensical answer of “It all depends on what predispositions exist at the time.”

No - far from it, what a petulant comment. Science can’t provide the absolute truth about everything - nothing can. What science can do, as long as it’s not infused with religion or other superstition, is provide the best available objective explanation of our environment.

I think its more appropriate to say we’re able to eliminate false conclusions about the environment we live in. “Mid-level” things like cells or atoms we can be certain about in terms of their mechanistic properties.

When we start talking about thing on the level of quarks and gluons or smaller or gigantic phenomena such as whole galaxies - well, we become quite cautious. Some of us do at least, as i’m sure Anselm can attest - there’s always a physicist willing to conjecture about something as wild as a Particle so inimical to nature that it goes back in time to prevent its discovery - (see Large Hadron Collider).

You Physicists have all the Fun.

There is plenty of evidence that God exists. You are mixing up evidence and proof. You just do not accept the evidence.

More appropriate to say we don’t accept the assumptions. Because what is at issue is what exactly constitutes evidence.

ANY system of thought can be rational. No really, think about it for a second. You start of with a set of principles or assumptions that are considered by some to be “self-evident” (ie: Unprovable) and you build a set of rules or laws based on those propositions.

Aristotlean Physics, Stalinist Communism, Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” - they all make sense on paper. But how well do they match up/map over Experience?

We can “move the goal post” all day claiming what is or isn’t acceptable for what constitutes evidence. We can shout rant or rave about how the other person hasn’t “opened their minds” to the possibilities - and i’m sure a Postmodernist Literary Critic would take us to task for “not opening our minds to the possibility there is no objectivity” or a Hindu asking us to “open our minds to the existence of the law of karma.”

Moving the goal post gets us nowhere.

If you disagree, please post an example of how religion makes a scientific theory of your choice, objectively more valuable. Even better, please post a scientific theory that relies on religious doctrine at some point, and show how this theory is superior to one that doesn’t.

Or perhaps a more humble approach - let’s forget about “objectively more valuable.”

Can anything currently within the theological structure of Catholicism offer either inspiration/insight into a line research of METHODOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE.

uts on his Neuroscientist cap:

Oh Wastronian, before you start to say that no religion can do that - allow me to offer an example.

Tibetan Buddhism. Full Disclosure: No i am not a Tibetan Buddhist. BUT, the Dalai Lama has been engaging those in the field of Neuroscience for quite some time.

In fact he recently spoke a the last Society for Neuroscience conference in the UK.

Now is he trying to convince us of the efficacy of Reincarnation or the Law of Karma? No.

The Tibetan Buddhist’s have started off quite small really - they wish to talk about the nature of the mind. In their own way, these people have been studying it for more than 4,000 years - trying to provoke meditational states that would lead to enlightenment.

And lo and behold, what many of us would have considered to be nonsensical 19th century stories about Tibetan monks melting ice with their minds (EDIT before someone gets the wrong idea - they increased their body temperature through sheer thought alone)…well…turned out to be true. (Herbert Benson, Harvard Medical College, MD/PHD - see Tummo).

From there started well, a veritable cottage industry of research projects based on analyzing the meditating mind - with some rather surprising results.

I’ve got meditation/yogic masters with 40+ years of experience showing up at Harvard, Mass Gen, and the Waisman Center in Michigan and delivering some rather jaw-dropping results.

But you see, my dear Catholics, they didn’t try “moving the goal post.” They stepped up to the plate, looked us straight in the eye and said, “We think your mistaken. And we’re going to show you.”

Now this hasn’t gotten all of us wanting to convert to Buddhism. But it has opened a dialogue, because it has allowed us to explore something together. In a non-adversarial fashion.

 

[TheAtheist]

As to the sentiment that the “The Evidence is all around us.”

Well, may i make a humble observation.

For sake of assumption - let’s assume you folks are correct - 100%.

When Christ was crucified, only one of his closest friends (who by all accounts must have been a very good man) showed up. The rest ran.

11 out of 12. 11 who had SEEN with their own two eyes the types of things we can only read about. And 1 of them, dear me, one of them who had walked on water and seen Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor had the…i don’t even know how to describe it… nerve to deny him 3 times.

EVEN AFTER SEEING ALL OF THAT. <—Do you know how many Weak Atheist/Agnostic scientist would probably go get baptized after seeing all of that?

And even after the resurrection, you still had people doubting. And St. Paul KNEW he was going to come up against stiff resistance from the Rationalists of his day residing in Athens.

You had 11 individuals at the Genesis point of your religion still doubting. Still doubting. The only way that Jesus could assuage their doubt was not by some overly complicated philosophical argument or inference. Nor by some subjective mystical experience.

He had to show up. To assuage their doubts directly.

---

That my dear Catholics, is what ever dyed in wool empiricist is seeking. Or to be absolutely honest, let’s jump over Jesus go after what Moses got - for if i’m not mistaken, he’s the only person in the whole of the Judaeo-Christian paradigm to actually get to see God.

But the more vocal contingent doesn’t seem to want to cut us any slack, even though 2,000+ years have gone by. Even though the folks who started off at Day 1 were still unsure - despite seeing miracles.

Its odd, you wish us to all act like John. Instead, there is in fact One Apostle that any empircist can truly respect, because of what he said.

I leave you now with his words:

"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
-The Original Thomas

 

[buffalo]

True. I believe the same thing BUT in the secular world there are different religions, buffalo. Secular scientists can’t start an experiment and use religion to inform the outcomes or theories. It’s absurd. Secular science is just that, proving what is visible and observable and recordable. They’re not out to prove the existence of Christ or the saints or miracles, etc. They measure and study what is visible and knowable. There is no need or point to throwing religion into it.

As a teacher I cannot throw my Catholicism on kids who are baptists, mormons, presbyterians, non-denoms, atheists, buddhists and the like. I can only witness my faith through my actions. We don’t live in a theocracy, ask the founding fathers. Science is separate from religion and should remain that way. Watching popes get all upset and frazzled over heliocentrism, etc. should give us plenty of reason to keep them OUT…

Wait just a minute…

You are right - one cannot pick a religion arbitrarily.

The same way science will arrive on what they think is the best explanation for empirical data, the same should be true for religion. Which one provides the best explanation and carries the fullness of truth? Which one has the best understanding of Revelation?

When a scientist starts reasoning the empirical data he draws conclusions.

Things fall down here on earth - observable, repeatable, predictable. He can write the paper up very simply. He does not need to carry over into philosophy. No problem here.

Science admits an a priori bias and their conclusions are reasoned in that light.

When they start bloviating about things they do not know beyond this then they are speculating, with their a priori no divine foot in the door bias.

As a teacher I find it hard to believe you wouldn’t want to tell the truth to every student and that they wouldn’t want to know the truth. What you are admitting is that you believe In Catholicism but are not certain of it.

 

[buffalo]

As to the sentiment that the “The Evidence is all around us.”

Well, may i make a humble observation.

For sake of assumption - let’s assume you folks are correct - 100%.

When Christ was crucified, only one of his closest friends (who by all accounts must have been a very good man) showed up. The rest ran.

11 out of 12. 11 who had SEEN with their own two eyes the types of things we can only read about. And 1 of them, dear me, one of them who had walked on water and seen Moses and Elijah on Mt. Tabor had the…i don’t even know how to describe it… nerve to deny him 3 times.

EVEN AFTER SEEING ALL OF THAT. <—Do you know how many Weak Atheist/Agnostic scientist would probably go get baptized after seeing all of that?

And even after the resurrection, you still had people doubting. And St. Paul KNEW he was going to come up against stiff resistance from the Rationalists of his day residing in Athens.

You had 11 individuals at the Genesis point of your religion still doubting. Still doubting. The only way that Jesus could assuage their doubt was not by some overly complicated philosophical argument or inference. Nor by some subjective mystical experience.

He had to show up. To assuage their doubts directly.

---

That my dear Catholics, is what ever dyed in wool empiricist is seeking. Or to be absolutely honest, let’s jump over Jesus go after what Moses got - for if i’m not mistaken, he’s the only person in the whole of the Judaeo-Christian paradigm to actually get to see God.

But the more vocal contingent doesn’t seem to want to cut us any slack, even though 2,000+ years have gone by. Even though the folks who started off at Day 1 were still unsure - despite seeing miracles.

Its odd, you wish us to all act like John. Instead, there is in fact One Apostle that any empircist can truly respect, because of what he said.

I leave you now with his words:

"Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
-The Original Thomas

Yup - you are among the doubting Thomas’. You have described well the human condition.

Jesus’ apostles became fearful when the reality of His death was apparent. They figured they were next. They did the human thing. They denied they ran, they hid, to avoid the same plight. They were not ready to go down with Jesus.

If they had who would have Jesus appeared to after His death. Who would HE send the Holy Spirit to to illuminate their understanding of what happened if they were all dead. Who would carry the accounts forward? Who would believe without witnesses?

When a witnesses tells you about a car accident he witnessed do you deny the accident occurred because you were not there? How about when two tell you? Four?etc. How about 500? How many does it take?

Notice the difference after He Resurrected. They were then ready to die for the truth.

 

[TheAtheist]

Yup - you are among the doubting Thomas’. You have described well the human condition.

Jesus’ apostles became fearful when the reality of His death was apparent. They figured they were next. They did the human thing.They denied they ran, they hid, to avoid the same plight. They were not ready to go down with Jesus.

If they had who would have Jesus appeared to after His death. Who would HE send the Holy Spirit to to illuminate their understanding of what happened if they were all dead. Who would carry the accounts forward? Who would believe without witnesses?

When a witnesses tells you about a car accident he witnessed do you deny the accident occurred because you were not there? How about when two tell you? Four?etc. How about 500? How many does it take?

Notice the difference after He Resurrected. They were then ready to die for the truth.

Buffalo, why would they all be dead? No Roman Centurion came after John.

As for the “human thing,” there have been a lot of people who have gone willingly to their deaths for a lot of strange abstract causes. Things that they have nor ever will see. I can point to all the dead corpses fighting for things like the Reich, Communist Utopia, Dar Al-Islam, Christendom, et al.

The difference of course is Buffalo, is that unlike the pile of corpses, if we start with the assumption of the argument, the 12 actually GOT PROOF…and 11 of them still ran.

And yet, we who do not have proof, who are SO far removed from the events stated. Who have corrected whole swaths of epistemological and physical assumptions that the Greeks and Romans made - your still not willing to cut us some slack?

And comparing, what if understand your tradition is the foundation point, the resurrection, as something similar to a Car Crash is a bit off.

A Singular event vs. one that can be repeated and Observed.

Does anyone detect a slight Asymmetry in treatment?

EDIT - You know, i pride myself as Scientist first, and an Atheist second. Namely because current trends in Atheism tend to look more like a social movement…a really really angry social movement.

But, i guess what i’m saying is this.

If you folks honestly believe in the truth that you uphold. I mean, at least perhaps 99%.

And if you believe that Truth is Unitary.

Then - just let us do as we will, let us explore independent of dogma. Let us over turn our tables and our paradigms, continue to refine. For if God is Truth as you say, and though it may take 4,000 years or more - we will eventually hit on it.

Independent of a preordained belief.

Have a little faith…

 

[edwest2]

Nonsense. Science does not need to know the “Why” to understand the “How come.” The motivation for science comes from wanting to discover more about our world; religion is not involved at all.

The moment we start to assume there is a “Why” (that is, a higher purpose, an ultimate intent), we risk tainting the results of our scientific conclusions. Particularly if we start believing that the “why” (if there is one) must correlate with this religious belief or that religious belief, then science loses its independence and therefore its value.

Science must be secular, otherwise it’s not science. Religion adds no value.

Many great scientists gave glory to God in their work in the past. They recognized His presence in nature. Today, some would rather forget this or not mention it.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Science, by definition must be secular. It is the human search for truth in our material world. If science were allied with anything, its position would be compromised. To be secular for science is to be objective. It is the usage of scientific findings that can be used on a biased basis.

It should be pointed out that most scientific research done today is sponsored and directed by the military and industry.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

But this is a stance that is a result of your religious belief. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it has no bearing on the objective value of scientific discovery, particularly as there’s no evidence that “why” is even a valid question.

I think that faith in a “universal order” (in other words, consistency of natural effects throughout the universe) is important to science - otherwise its predictive power is threatened… but I don’t believe this necessitates a “Higher Power.”

I don’t know what “monkey” curiosity is, but yes, I believe that the acquisition of knowledge is driven by curiosity (and in many cases, a desire to make the world a better place) and the satisfaction of knowledge acquired/technology improved/lives benefited.

When I was younger I wanted to know how an internal combustion engine worked. I was curious; it would help me fix my car when it went wrong; it would help me help others. I had no reason to suppose there was some ineffable reason for an internal combustion engine to work the way it does. I continue to seek knowledge in areas that interest me, without any supposition of an overarching “why.” This does not diminish my desire to learn, nor my satisfaction when I understand.

Why should science in general be any different?

Do they argue for that specific causation? No matter - I can believe it - but that doesn’t mean that modern-day science is driven by the same motivation. Indeed, there are many (most? don’t know the numbers) non-religious scientists working in the world today - so how can the motivation for science be religious in nature?

Yet in an increasingly secular world, science is developing and advancing. It is not being driven by religious curiosity.

You seem to be basing your argument in the fact that ‘modern’ science developed in a religious culture (big surprise - all cultures were religious at that time), and your personal belief that there is a underlying intent for the universe and its natural laws.

Science is advancing toward what? It is simply a human endeavor to solve problems.

I study the history of technology. Science depends a great deal on what humans want.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

True. I believe the same thing BUT in the secular world there are different religions, buffalo. Secular scientists can’t start an experiment and use religion to inform the outcomes or theories. It’s absurd. Secular science is just that, proving what is visible and observable and recordable. They’re not out to prove the existence of Christ or the saints or miracles, etc. They measure and study what is visible and knowable. There is no need or point to throwing religion into it.

As a teacher I cannot throw my Catholicism on kids who are baptists, mormons, presbyterians, non-denoms, atheists, buddhists and the like. I can only witness my faith through my actions. We don’t live in a theocracy, ask the founding fathers. Science is separate from religion and should remain that way. Watching popes get all upset and frazzled over heliocentrism, etc. should give us plenty of reason to keep them OUT…

“we don’t live in a theocracy”? What about the Founding Fathers?

There appears to be a desire to escape God. To simply run away. And science will become His substitute.

adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

Rewriting history to promote an agenda is simply not honest.

earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/farewell/

God bless,
Ed

 

[tqualey]

FONT=“Century Gothic”]Hi, Geekborj,

I don’t quite see it that way,… And, let me make a distinction here: Science is an applied discipline with set rules for further inquiry so that natural truth can be better understood. While the main aspect of truth differs based on the discipline involved (as Chemistry differs Math - we can certainly use Math in Chemistry.)

The search for Truth does not reside in Science - BUT - all truth somehow refllects His One Truth - so Science can be an aid to those who are properly disposed. Scientists can adopt and embrace this Truth so that they are seeing’s God’s hand in the natural environment. But Scientists are human and can demonstrate flexibility.

God bless

If Science is made or limited to the secular world, Science will significantly loose its internal motivation which is to find the Truth about the World. In the end, Science needs motivation that is provided by the “why” and the deeper senses of the meanings.

E.g. Why do we need medicine? Why are we “more evolved” than other animals? Why do we need to do research to “improve” human life?

Without the religious aspect of life, Science will loose its inner motivation! Science must never forget where or whom she came from and her objectives are.

 

[buffalo]

Buffalo, why would they all be dead? No Roman Centurion came after John.

As for the “human thing,” there have been a lot of people who have gone willingly to their deaths for a lot of strange abstract causes. Things that they have nor ever will see. I can point to all the dead corpses fighting for things like the Reich, Communist Utopia, Dar Al-Islam, Christendom, et al.

The difference of course is Buffalo, is that unlike the pile of corpses, if we start with the assumption of the argument, the 12 actually GOT PROOF…and 11 of them still ran.

And yet, we who do not have proof, who are SO far removed from the events stated. Who have corrected whole swaths of epistemological and physical assumptions that the Greeks and Romans made - your still not willing to cut us some slack?

And comparing, what if understand your tradition is the foundation point, the resurrection, as something similar to a Car Crash is a bit off.

A Singular event vs. one that can be repeated and Observed.

Does anyone detect a slight Asymmetry in treatment?

EDIT - You know, i pride myself as Scientist first, and an Atheist second. Namely because current trends in Atheism tend to look more like a social movement…a really really angry social movement.

But, i guess what i’m saying is this.

If you folks honestly believe in the truth that you uphold. I mean, at least perhaps 99%.

And if you believe that Truth is Unitary.

Then - just let us do as we will, let us explore independent of dogma. Let us over turn our tables and our paradigms, continue to refine. For if God is Truth as you say, and though it may take 4,000 years or more - we will eventually hit on it.

Independent of a preordained belief.

Have a little faith…

They ran before the Resurrection and then were martyred after the Resurrection.

Yes - people do die for strange reasons.

We are dependent on the faithful transmission of the Deposit of Truth. The Catholic Church is like a three legged stool, scripture, tradition and the magisterium. Take any one away and the stool topples.

You cannot repeat the car accident. The best one can do is re-enact. But the point is that if enough witnesses see the accident and document it, history will surely understand that it happened, whether it be 5 minutes ago or 2000 years ago. The details may be slightly different but there would be no question that the accident happened. There is no question Jesus Resurrected from the dead. There is no serious historian who denies that the information we have in hand meets the test.

you - “A Singular event vs. one that can be repeated and Observed.” - thank you for that clear admission the reason evolution is not empirical.

You are free to research away. But I demand a clear accounting and transparency if it is my tax dollar. Fair enough?

 

[TheAtheist]

They ran before the Resurrection and then were martyred after the Resurrection.

The point i was trying to make Buffalo is that it Took a Resurrection in the First place for them to believe. Not a philosophical argument.

Jesus didn’t pull a Pythagoras or a Plato or an Aristotle.

He demonstrated. Then Demonstrated Again. Then Demonstrated Again.

ie: CONTINUAL REINFORCEMENT.

Each time, the miracle got bigger right? Water into Wine. Bah.

Raising Lazarus however…I mean come on! That’s a big ticket seller!

And in the end that still wasn’t enough to keep faith under pressure. (Minus John)

It took the Great Big show stopper to bring them back. And even then one still wasn’t convinced until he did some fleshy poking around!

Which is why it boggles my mind when people say that the evidence for the existence of God is all around us and that all we have to do “open our minds” to it.

Frankly, before i sign up, i’ll have what the illiterate Fishermen got. They have higher standards of evidence.

There is no question Jesus Resurrected from the dead. There is no serious historian who denies that the information we have in hand meets the test.

Oh boy. Than you’ve written off a whole chunk of historians. And i’m not even talking about the crazy ones who go in reverse and try to deny the existence of Jesus as a historic person.

But the point is that if enough witnesses see the accident and document it, history will surely understand that it happened, whether it be 5 minutes ago or 2000 years ago. The details may be slightly different but there would be no question that the accident happened.

And what about other religions who report similar miraculous happenings? We’ve got Chinese dynastic records stretching back to the Han Dynasty ~ Early Imperial Roman era with a whole host of events. Same in India. Same in Arabia.

So, what’s your favorite explanation Buffalo. Are they mistaken? Trick of the mind? St. Augustine’s tried and true favorite: Demons. Lots and Lots of Demons. Every person bowing down to Kuan-Yin, Allah, Vishnu are all worshipping demons? Every person across the Earth worshipping a deity and getting response is in fact communing with a fallen angel?

… You know what question is going to come up if you say yes to any of those options.

you - “A Singular event vs. one that can be repeated and Observed.” - thank you for that clear admission the reason evolution is not empirical.

Umm. Ok. Does that make you feel better? I mean generally, most of us are willing to say its the more reasonable position given evidence on hand.

That and it actually informs a research paradigm that we can actually work with - remember what i said about “Methodological Consequences.”

One of the big stumbling blocks to ID is that it doesn’t really give us anything to work with. Emphasis on the “Work with” part.

You are free to research away. But I demand a clear accounting and transparency if it is my tax dollar. Fair enough?

Hehehhee. Sorry my friend. That’s totally out of my hand. We’re Supplicants before the Ivory Tower, Big Business, and the Government.

Remember, we give them proposals, and they laugh in our face if they don’t like it. Whole fields of basic science research can get held up simply because they do not see any immediate value in it.

Monetary Prioritization has always gone toward Pragmatic ends. Or what they think are pragmatic ends - (this is especially true for the Military. They have this strangest habit of coming up with Ideas 1st, laws of science be damned, and expecting its possible)

And if one or two people refuse to work on it, let’s say the Atom Bomb for instance, i guarantee you there’s about twenty others who will.

You want that to change? Change the government.

 

[buffalo]

The point i was trying to make Buffalo is that it Took a Resurrection in the First place for them to believe. Not a philosophical argument.

Jesus didn’t pull a Pythagoras or a Plato or an Aristotle.

He demonstrated. Then Demonstrated Again. Then Demonstrated Again.

Each time, the miracle got bigger right? Water into Wine. Bah.

Raising Lazarus however…I mean come on! That’s a big ticket seller!

And in the end that still wasn’t enough to keep faith under pressure. (Minus John)

It took a show stopper to bring them back. And even then one still wasn’t convinced until he did some fleshy poking around!

Which is why it boggles my mind when people say that the evidence for the existence of God is all around us and that all we have to do “open our minds” to it.

Frankly, before i sign up, i’ll have what the illiterate Fishermen got. They have higher standards of evidence.

There is no question Jesus Resurrected from the dead. There is no serious historian who denies that the information we have in hand meets the test.

Oh boy. Than you’ve written off a whole chunk of historians. And i’m not even talking about the crazy ones who go in reverse and try to deny the existence of Jesus as a historic person.

And what about other religions who report similar miraculous happenings? We’ve got Chinese dynastic records stretching back to the Han Dynasty ~ Early Imperial Roman era with a whole host of events. Same in India. Same in Arabia.

So, what’s your favorite explanation Buffalo. Are they mistaken? Trick of the mind? St. Augustine’s tried and true favorite: Demons. Lots and Lots of Demons. Every person bowing down to Kuan-Yin, Allah, Vishnu are all worshipping demons?

Umm. Ok. Does that make you feel better?

Hehehhee. Sorry my friend. That’s totally out of my hand. We’re Supplicants before the Ivory Tower, Big Business, and the Government.

Remember, we give them proposals, and they laugh in our face if they don’t like it. Whole fields of basic science research can get held up simply because they do not see any immediately value in it.

Monetary Prioritization has always gone toward Pragmatic ends. Or what they think are pragmatic ends - (this is especially true for the Military. They have this strangest habit of coming up with Ideas 1st, laws of science be damned, and expecting its possible)

And if one or two people refuse to work on it, let’s say the Atom Bomb for instance, i guarantee you there’s about twenty others who will.

You want that to change? Change the government.

And it goes on today - we experience Jesus and that brings more converts than all the arguments made here.

And it goes on today - most of us would buckle under religious persecution.

Other religions - test and test - see if they pass muster.

You bring up the Chinese - what do you make of this? Ancient Chinese Characters

Yes I feel really good, thanks.

 

[wanstronian]

The evidence is fine and meets the tests. Proposing your cat can fly? - again I believe you need to inform yourself, where it came from and why it is reliable.

Actually, my cat can fly. Would you like to see the evidence? Well, one of my friends has seen it, honest.

Bingo - How do we know what the truth is? We cannot not know unless we receive information from outside out frame. We need a reference point if you will.

Which is what? What’s your datum for truth? Tell me what this truth is, and how it affects scientific discovery. Show me how all the scientific theories to date, which don’t involve this ‘truth’ are wrong, and show me how they’ll be right when viewed in the context of this ‘truth.’

I didn’t say it would overturn all knowledge. It won’t. It won’t overturn history. It won’t overturn Revelation. It will definitely overturn some science. (already has)

Example? You have an example where a scientific theory has been overturned purely using religious (name removed by moderator)ut, and that overturning has been overwhelmingly accepted by the red-faced scientists? Let’s hear it; I’m all ears.

Question - how do we know we have the foundations of scientific reasoning correct? Is there a way to know?

We know as much as we can do, in the only way we can know: it works. It works consistently and objectively.

We know truth from Revelation, which comes from outside our frame.

Are you talking about the Book of Revelation, or about personal subjective revelations? In either case - why believe it’s true?

My claim is science needs a truthful bearing or it will result in false conclusions. It is irrational to restrict scientific reasoning. It does not result in independent objective reasoning. There is no reference point.

You’re kidding! The scientific method doesn’t result in independent objective reasoning, but positing God’s involvement somehow does?

Modern science has an a priori bias about keeping Revelation out of its reasoning.

Thankfully this is so, otherwise the results would not be scientific, they would be guesswork. The long and the short of it is, science works without God.

I have a proposal.

On the same empirical data reason using no objective truth and another line using objective truth. Over time the answer should be clear.

Since taxpayers fund much scientific research they should be assured the reasoning is correct and provides an honest return. If the reasoning process does not assure them then those involved are simply raping taxpayers to promote their own worldview.

Objective truth, eh? Which is what, exactly? How much time do we need to allow for the answer to become clear? What are your metrics?

I’m still not sure what your proposal is. Please would you propose an experiment, including all its parameters, methods, and expected results, that absolutely hinges upon this ‘truth’ you talk about (you’d better define that too so we can all be clear). Please also state exactly how this experiment is richer for the inclusion of this mysterious ‘truth,’ and how without it the experiment fails to provide an objective conclusion.

If you can do this, we have an interesting discussion on our hands. If you can’t, you’re just spouting rhetoric and I won’t waste any more of my time.

 

[wanstronian]

Many great scientists gave glory to God in their work in the past. They recognized His presence in nature. Today, some would rather forget this or not mention it.

God bless,
Ed

This is true, they did. They knew no better and, if they had suspicions, knew better then to voice them in an overwhelmingly religious culture where doubt was met with swift retribution.