Posted on 03/12/2011 2:58:25 PM PST by betty boop
In your case science has not discovered a working model for your condition. There there is no science for it. Science comes from the word to know, so if they don't know what causes your condition, that means there is no science to explain it.
Doctors don't know and simply aren't interested in pursuing something out of the ordinary
That doesn't mean science doesn't work. It means human beings are not interested in pursuing it. Two different things.
When it comes to setting a bone, removing an appendix, treating diabetes, for example, science is adequate. Outside of that, forget it
Scienists don't claim to know everything. Religious people do. We all know science is limited. But what has been made into working models works, be it your car or the Internet.
Attributing to science godlike characteristics is giving far more credit to science than it deserves
Who does? Not the scientists. Not me. And who are you to judge how much credit science deserves?
Science is a tool, nothing more. It does not GIVE us anything. What gives us the benefits of the knowledge gained through investigation of the world we live in is the proper application of the knowledge. That puts it solidly in the realm of philosophy
What does religion give you except an unsubstantiated expectation? It doesn't help you get to work faster. It doesn't help you with a broken bone...
Science is not philosophy. Science is real. It produces things that do things. Philosophy produces nothing.
What you are attributing to science it more appropriately attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic and morality.
Negative, I said "has helped mankind live better, longer and more comfortable lives; it has made it possible to produce food in abundance, to provide modes of transportation that are fast, efficacious and affordable. It has produced medicines that treat and prevent disease; it made it possible for everyone to have a vast library of resources of knowledge and for learning via the Internet, and much, much more." There is nothing "Judeao-Christian" in any of it.
Tell the Jews in Mengele's labs that science has helped them.
Science is not a living thing, but a tool as you said. as such it can be used by people for good or evil purpose. It's not science that is at fault but, as always, people.
Without the Judeo-Christian ethic, tell us what good and evil are?
Are these scientific subjects? I think you are confused.
The whole premise that science is objective and capable of providing a comfortable life and technology, is a philosophical construct
Of sure, electricity is no better than candles, and our toilets are no different than outhouses. Hunting for food, is no different than going to a local supermarket and buying already cleaned and washed and packaged meats and other food products. Of course, driving a car to the grocery, with air-conditioning or heating, with stereo music and a GPS to tell you where to go is no different than the horse an buggy good old days. Never mind pulling teeth but barbers without anesthesia...and so on. That's all "philosophical" ey?
An optical engineeer does not need wisdom to design your contact lenses or the next Space Telescope. He does need the knowledge to do it. Both products are very useful, because they help us see better and farther. It was science, and not philosophy or religion that produced the camera that took the picture of your loved ones.
Because it is found in all societies.
Where does the Golden Rule come from?
The simple knowledge even an infant knows: what feels bad and what feels good. That is the underlying fabric of all our preferences, except we lay a thick layer of rationalizaitons over it to make it look "wise".
Why should that be authoritative over situational ethics as morality?
Because that's how living organisms are. They are attracted to what feels good and avoid what feels bad.
I have no clue and neither does anyone else. But we know what dead matter is, and we know what can make living matter into dead matter.
What does science tell us life is?
A river/s... :)
What's the inherent difference in a body which was living one second and dead the next?
One is moving and breathing the other is irreversibly not.
Before rot and decay sets in, they are chemically identical.
No they are not.
What's preventing the decay in a body which we call living?
Obviously you don't know much about biology or you wouldn't be asking such juvenile questions.
If someone is on life support, are they dead or alive? They are living, even if they have no brain activity.
What's this got to do with the Big Bang?
Thank you. Not being a Biblical scholar I have done little reading of the Old Testament. Yet, does what you say negate what I said? I have done a little research and there seems to be considerable debate over the meaning of the phrase Son of Man.
Murder, theft, lying, etc, as found in all societies, too.
Besides, that didn't answer the question, unless you are saying that morality is based on consensus.
So, just WHO gets to decide then, what moral system people use and which one is better than another? On what basis do you decide what is *good* or not?
The simple knowledge even an infant knows: what feels bad and what feels good. That is the underlying fabric of all our preferences, except we lay a thick layer of rationalizaitons over it to make it look "wise".
Well, there's a crock. Yeah, an infant knows what feels good and what doesn't, and let them use that as the basis of morality and in two years you have an out of control little tyrant. You don't have children, do you?
Here's a clue. You don't have to teach children to be bad.
Because that's how living organisms are. They are attracted to what feels good and avoid what feels bad.
That's situational ethics again. The Golden Rule goes against human nature. Where did it come from and who gets to decide that it's good and we should live by it?
Sure they do. Otherwise, why do they go around telling other people they're wrong about the supernatural and God? Scientists have been going around with a God complex for decades, ever since they ejected Him from consideration in the scientific process. They had to replace Him with something, so they made it themselves.
Science is not philosophy. Science is real. It produces things that do things. Philosophy produces nothing.
Science is a data gathering methodology, nothing more. Anything beyond that is a philosophical consideration. Science is not and cannot remain philosophically neutral. Philosophy of some kind is essential to the interpretation and application of the data.
The whole concept that one can objectively test and observe experiments is philosophical in nature. the problem is that most scientists don't recognize or acknowledge the philosophical base of science.
Negative, I said "has helped mankind live better, longer and more comfortable lives; it has made it possible to produce food in abundance, to provide modes of transportation that are fast, efficacious and affordable. It has produced medicines that treat and prevent disease; it made it possible for everyone to have a vast library of resources of knowledge and for learning via the Internet, and much, much more." There is nothing "Judeao-Christian" in any of it.
Sure there is. The Judeo-Christian drives the application of the knowledge gained. Otherwise, you get Mengele's.
Of sure, electricity is no better than candles, and our toilets are no different than outhouses. Hunting for food, is no different than going to a local supermarket and buying already cleaned and washed and packaged meats and other food products.
Thank you again for providing an excellent example of what I was saying.
You claim that some things are *better* than others. What constitutes *better*? What standard do you use to justify your preference? What criteria do you use to decide what is *good*, and *bad* and *better* and *worse*? Reduce it to science. How does science form a basis for making value judgments on issues?
No answers, I see.
Thanks......
kosta50: "Not "mere" matter. Dead matter. Dead matter is not conscious of itself. It is dead."
I see you BELIEVE that is TRUE.
If your mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in your brain, you have no reason to suppose that your beliefs are true... and hence you have no reason for supposing your brain to be composed of atoms." (Haldane)
Matter and Mind - The Childlike Faith of the Scientific Fundamentalist
"We can easily show that science, especially in our time, has become a faux religion. This is because, in maintaining the bright line between religion and science, a lot of religion ends up on the science side. Thus, while the father of empirical science may be doubt, its mother is unabashed faith. For example... "Newton doubted the traditional theory of 'gravity,' but he believed in the unity of the world, and therefore in cosmic analogy. This is why he could arrive at the cosmic law of gravitation in consequence of the fact of an apple falling from a tree. Doubt set his thought in motion; faith rendered it fruitful."
"Now, that is a point worth dwelling on: Faith rendered his thinking fruitful. As I have mentioned a number of times, this has been one of the genuine surprises of my life. I think, based upon my understanding of Polanyi, I already understood that our implicit scientific models of reality are always rooted in a type of unarticulated faith about the nature of things. What I did not realize was the extent to which faith in traditional revelation could be such a fruitful and generative way to think about reality in its deeper sense. In other words, I allowed for scientific faith; it was religious faith that made no sense to me. ..."
Very illogical kosta. A baby 'feels' is based upon a degree of selfishness - it doesn't recognize anyone except those who meet his/her needs. Your attempt to project individual selfishness to individual self sacrifice doesn't work.
They are attracted to what feels good and avoid what feels bad.
Again, lacking substance kosta. There are an abundance of examples were people are attracted to what feels "bad" (again, subjective designation on your part) believing it to be "good".
Thanks for posting that, PI. Robot, the use of the term “Son of Man” was so loaded and so deliberate by Jesus (he was saying “I am the Messiah”) that my gut tells me this use is the most important aspect of His use of the term.
OTOH, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection were all part of God’s long term plan of redemption. And, Jesus was the word who was God and was with God before all things were created (John 1). So who is to say God did not use the term “Son of Man” in the Old Testament to allow Jesus to suggest exactly the point you are making—that Jesus came for man and man’s redemption—when he referred to himself as the Messiah.
To modern ears, it is curious that “Son of Man” was a clearer reference to divinity by Jesus than “Son of God.”
Along with Daniel 7, I suggest you read Matthew 16, where Jesus asks his disciples who “people” say the Son of Man [the Messiah] is. The disciples make several suggestions, John the Baptist, Elijah among others. Then he asks “Who do you say that I am.” And Peter responds that Jesus is the Christ (the Messiah) and Son of the Living God. Jesus replies that this had been revealed to Peter by the Father in Heaven. So in effect, this passage makes all three terms, Son of Man, Messiah, and Son of God pretty much equivalent and vested in Jesus.
You’re welcome.
When I was born again so many decades ago, it was almost an immediate thing that I associated the exercising of faith in being reborn, with the interesting phenomenon in Physics which asserts the observer is so intimately involved in any phenomenon under study that the mere observation and choices made by the scientists effect which outcome will be found. If indeed this is a fundamental characteristic of the universe then we may associate that phenomenon to the function of being born again from above ... it is as if God is still creating aspects of His universe and the special behavior of choosing consciously to exercise faith in His Promises woven in His Grace through Christ Jesus toward us that a next level of creation involving the intelligences in the universe is manifesting. This phenomenon will become accutely understood if and when Humans make 'conversational' contact with extra-terrestrials ... IMHO.
Many choose to not be a part of the next phase shift which God has instructed will occur at a time of His choosing. Faith is a most powerful force when viewed in that regard. We all know how to exercise faith, but it takes a choice to exercise faith in The Promises of God, thus intimating the profound significance and power of same.
Indeed; and don't forget Mohammed claimed likewise.
Indeed, Mind-numbed Robot! As Alamo-Girl and I wrote in our book, Timothy,
...Reality is not a “thing”; it is an all-encompassing dynamic process in which God and man and society and world all mutually participate; ... any “thing” that can be discerned by the rational mind in this encompassing reality is in some sense real, owing to “the indefeasible integrity” of the human psyche. Thus reality is intelligible; and man is an intelligent being who, as such, is naturally capable of acquiring knowledge and understanding reality. These understandings logically entail our consideration of three “cautionary” corollaries: (1) “Reality is not a given that could be observed from a vantage point outside itself but embraces the consciousness in which it becomes luminous.” (2) “The experience of reality cannot be total but has the character of a perspective.” (3) “The knowledge of reality conveyed by the symbols can never become a final possession of truth, for the luminous perspectives that we call experiences, as well as the symbols engendered by them, are part of reality in process.”Our observations are premised in Natural Law theory, which states there is a direct correspondence between the order of the natural world and the order of the human mind. (The direct quotes are from Eric Voegelin.) This is the reason the world is intelligible to us in the first place.
But we can only see what we see from where we stand — our view is always a perspective, and therefore only partial: We never see everything there is all at once, for we cannot stand on some Archimedean point outside the natural order so as to see it all entire. We are parts and participants in that order, which is ever changing. For this reason, the truth of reality that we symbolize in language based on our experiences of it can never be a complete description of Reality, nor a "final possession" of human knowledge.
Reality is not a "thing" — meaning it is not an "object of intention" amenable to scientific analysis — for the simple reason that no human mind can possibly grasp it all entire all at once: It is a process on a far larger timescale than the timescale of any particular human mind, no matter its genius.
The ancients knew better than we moderns do that the truth of Reality is a human quest, a search. This quest has been ongoing over millennia. If we forget this, we are prone to "reducing" Reality to the size of our "partial" conceptualizations of it. And we will falsify Reality every time thereby.
Worse, we will become susceptible to the blandishments of people who claim to "know the Truth," people who would be glad to tell us what it is if we would just listen to them. People like Alice Bailey, Benjamin Creme, and G. I. Gurdjieff — or Richard Dawkins and company for that matter....
BTW Mind-number Robot, thank you ever so much for reading A-G's and my books! There were three books reviews of Timothy that I'm aware of. The first — consisting of four words — was penned at Darwin Central by former FReeper, Celt Jew. The four words: "This book is unreadable." LOL! The second was from my own father: "You need to learn to be kinder to your reader." :^) The third was a little more "positive":
"This book is one of the rare attempts nowadays to restore the unity of science and religion. It presents a good picture of present-day science, focusing on the perennial great questions regarding the relations between Man and the Universe. It attempts the virtually impossible: to present a constructive dialog of diametrically opposed worldviews. It succeeds in opening a challenging avenue of conversation between materialists and open-minded religious people. Now on my third reading, I am still finding something new and valuable in its pages.”Glad to know somebody "got it!" That somebody, however, is a friend — Attila Grandpierre, an astrophysicist and theoretical biologist affiliated with Konkoly Observatory of The Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest. We cite his own work in our text; so maybe that's why his review is so favorable.... ;^)
Thank you so very much, Mind-numbed Robot, for your astute observation!
I think that this Jesus fellow is going to HAVE to return - just to set the record straight!
“God the Father created both, and further commanded that man is not to sunder what He has united.”
Is there a specific scripture you can point to that makes that command? I’d be interested in knowing it.
Such a theft is full of implications. One immediately thinks of how the secular west is parasitic on the Christian civilization that gave birth to it, but without so much as acknowledging the debt. This is not just a discourtesy but a grave sin.
Think of how contemporary liberals ransack the Constitution in order to remove and distort what they need in order to confer a fraudulent legitimacy upon their policy preferences. Any sensible American intuitively understands that this involves the theft of something sacred — not the least of which being the blood that was shed in order to make that Constitution possible and to endure.
For even prior to the Constitution are the courageous human beings who recognized and were willing to risk their lives and fortunes in defense of the Good. To steal this priceless treasure from one's countrymen is morally indistinct from grave robbing. Then the left has the hutzpah to call it a "living" document!
Gagdad Bob Strikes again!!!
How I love this guy!
Thanks, Matchett-PI, for the link to yet another fascinating essay by Dr. Godwin!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.