Much as when creationist criticize science based entirely on religious belief?
Perhaps. I’d suppose there needs be some logic involved. I can’t accept a religious belief that defies logic, and I don’t believe that God made us with logical minds, just to provide illogical revelations. So, I suppose your term only applies if it’s “entirely” based on religious belief. The difference for me is that the teachers of my religion are trained in philosophy, and the ones with degrees in science are not.
My idea is that real science cannot be opposed to true faith, because truth is always true. There are only mistakes and mistaken ideas. If the religion is true, the science must agree with it, as well as the reverse.-Glenn
That’s a valid comparison and thought. I would like to see those points validly debated though, and they seemingly never are debated. You know, Coyoteman, I’m open to facts, but I also want to test assumptions, when there’s doubt or question about the facts. From my reading, it usually goes like this:
-”The earth was created in 6 days.”
-”That’s stupid. It’s not worth discussion.”
-”You just hate God.”
-”You’re granddaddy was a monkey, and I’ve got 3 degrees and have been studying this for 40 years.”
-”You’re going to Hell.”
Not too much productive discussion. Some of it’s going on in this thread. I have no problem with you saying some article of faith in a religious belief is not scientific fact. I already know that, sometimes. But other times, some of those articles are valid, logical propositions that actually need argumentation to disprove (or prove, for that matter). It’s when we refuse to consider those propositions, meaning the assumptions that make the belief, whether “scientific” or “religious” that the discussion breaks down.
From my view, (and you know I don’t believe in evolution...and it’s not forbidden by my faith), the first assumptions are questionable enough to not provide a base to build a solid foundation for all the following assumptions that the theory is built upon. On the last thread I posted with you, we ended up getting back to the “big bang,” just where this one started. Since that last thread, I’ve been reading books and looking around at all sorts of literature about the bb, and I have to say, most of it makes as much sense (to me) as the quote from the book in that started this thread.
Somebody in the last thread told me, if I thought the bb was false, I didn’t know enough about it (I didn’t, really. I did sort of accepted it as science). I don’t think it was you, but anyway, I figured, if I am discussing it, I’ll try to know what I’m saying, so I read. There’s a lot of minute detail to read about, and if you get into it, a lot of mathematical models and matrices, etc. But what always keeps me from actually believing in it, is that all the models and ideas always come back to something like what opened this thread. It always requires you to believe something that is beyond my capacity to swallow. I could say a lot of nasty things about a lot of the scientists who propose all the various details, but that doesn’t get anywhere. It always comes to a belief that something took place, with absolutely no foundation, in some ultimate cause, and what the difference is, is whether the word “cause” has a capital “C” or not.
You and I both know, when this thread peters out, nobody is going to change his mind, and in the meantime, a bunch of folks have insulted each other. There are a bunch of folks who will never believe that peptide (or whatever) washed up on the beach and came alive, and another bunch who will never believe that a loving God created all the universe in 6 days, and actually maintains everything at every moment. My only interest in these things is to point out that either group has to accept things to start, which have absolutely no basis in what we call “facts.” It’s a little grating to folks on your side of the isle, sometimes, but those on my side accept that as where we start, because it is an unknowable beginning. There are a lot of “questionable” assumptions along the way to get to 2007, too, both in religion and science, but all of those are based upon what precedes it.
I’ve rambled enough, and am going to sign off and get a brew.-Glenn