prometheus11
Well-Known Member
It doesn't bother me if you or others lie. I just wonder if God forgives lies said for his purposes. Atheism and science are not at odds lol.
I've insulted no one. I asked a question. Do to feel guilty? Why?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I am sceptical of the Skeptics. Is it wrong?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
It doesn't bother me if you or others lie. I just wonder if God forgives lies said for his purposes. Atheism and science are not at odds lol.
I've insulted no one. I asked a question. Do to feel guilty? Why?
Shad
Veteran Member
No it was science vs science backed by a bias. Lemairtre required Hubble's work to provide evidence for his view, he provided none himself. This is how science works. Beside you are attempting to use Hoyle as if present day atheists accept the steady-state theory, a majority do not. Creating a strawman is dishonest, good to see you can not even follow your own comment's claims.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
What even?
There is no science vs atheism. There isn't even science vs religion. And why bring up Lemaitre v Hoyle?
It's his favorite drum to beat.
Midnight Rain
Well-Known Member
I've gathered I just don't see what he's trying to talk about. Lemaitre is a brilliant scientist who just so happened to be Catholic who even told the POPE to calm down that his science was not due to his religion. Then the opposite almost is true for Hoyle who was (rather prematurely) given a noble prize for his contributions to group work in his early years and then proceed to put himself on the wrong side of almost every theory since. He was once an acclaimed atheist and then changed his mind but continued to be wrong about science. In fact the majority of his controversial positions were held AFTER he abandoned atheism.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Did I ever say that?
Regards
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Maybe learn a bit about the science you're talking about before talking about it.
I'm sure you're happy with this little saying you probably find snappy and clever, but it's pretty much meaningless.
Of course Dawkins doesn't retract it, but he explains what he means by it, and what he means isn't what you want him to mean. And you're right; I'm not dishonest. I don't take quotes from people out of context on purpose in order to try to support my flawed point. My accusation of you being dishonest is because you're doing that, not because you have a different opinion. Pretending that it's just because you have a different opinion is itself dishonest.
Nope, they're not. Sometimes the establishment has trouble accepting new ideas, but science the institution is not in any way diametrically opposed to the method.
Let me fix that:
The other involves institutionalized consensus of opinion...based on the data obtained by that direct observation, accurate measurement and repeatable experiment.
As I said above, sometimes some scientists have trouble accepting new ideas, because they're human. But eventually, any idea that has sufficient evidence based on those observations and repeated experiments becomes the new scientific consensus.
It falls under scientific fact based on direct observation, repeated experiments and an incredibly large amount of data from accurate measurements.
It really takes a lot of fun out of discussions when you insist on being dishonest. It was not atheists who predicted various eternal/static models. The static model was the accepted model for a long time when most scientists were religious and the vast majority of the population was too. You have absolutely no leg to stand on with this nonsense about "atheists being the ones who supported the static model". It's complete BS.
You're still not making the case you think you're making. The fact remains that this wasn't "atheism vs. religion". It was the accepted view of the time held by all scientists - religious or not- vs. a new idea brought up by one scientist.
What shouldn't be? Hawking said God is redundant because he can explain how the universe came to be (at least how it came to be what it is now) without a god. There's no "guiding principle" here other than "use scientific method to observe universe".
I tend to wonder in cases like this how much is willful ignorance and how much is honest delusion. Of course The God Delusion had to do with personal beliefs. What does that have to do with anything? He's a prominent evolutionary biologist who also writes on other subjects. Do you similarly dismiss any work by scientists who dare to write about their religion? I'm going to guess not.
You say this, but the rest of your posts suggest otherwise. All Dawkins and Hawking and the others do is follow the evidence where it leads.
I mean, this is some of the most ridiculous stuff I've seen on this site. You do realize some of the greatest scientists of all-time were religious, right? Sir Isaac Newton - religious. Copernicus - religious. Francis Bacon - religious. Gregor Mendel - religious. The list goes on and on. Throughout history the vast majority of scientists and populations have been religious. Yet scientific discoveries were made and accepted by all of them. Your assertion here is absolute nonsense.
I'm not even sure I want to know how you rationalize the Theory of Evolution, as that is crystal clearly science vs. religion, in that the only people pushing against the well-established and very-well-evidenced scientific theory are religious people, specifically on religious grounds.
The feel I get from your posts is that you have some kind of problem with science as it is (i.e. the scientific method and the need for falsifiable hypotheses). Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
He has a tendency to take the views, hypotheses and/or quotes of individual atheists and try to paint atheism as a whole with them.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
The scientific method IS science, so, of course it's scientific. The creation of the scientific method was the beginning of science.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
No, it was formed by philosophy. Right?
Regards
leibowde84
Veteran Member
No, it was formed by reason and logic, if you really want to cram it into a category. But, the important part is that it was the beginning point of science.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Alrighty then.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
must ponder these thoughtful substantive responses..
because it's an unambiguous observation we agree on, was the point. I have no doubt he offers some fascinating 'explanations' for the absence of evidence. But 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade (re. the scientific method. re. the academic consensus- sure- that'll work)
which is it?
I think we already established and agreed that evolution from a single cell to man was not directly observable, measureable, repeatable as an experiment, did we not?
So you tell me, what is the consensus established on?
Right, so the opinion of scientists is distinct from the scientific method,
we must stop agreeing, what fun is that
Like classical physics? Would you say evolution was a more or less immutable fact than that was? which would you say was more directly observable, measurable, experimentally repeatable?
Again I assume you and everyone here is honest and capable of critical thought, at the very least it usually allows a more interesting discussion than merely trading ad hominem attacks, just my personal experience here.
The real problem with insulting people with different beliefs, is that it makes it very difficult to change your mind no matter the evidence (as Hoyle discovered, rejecting the BB till his dying day not so long ago)- 'have trouble accepting new ideas' as you put it.
But it's not only atheists at the time you disagree with
In the 1920s and 1930s almost every major cosmologist preferred an eternal steady state universe, and several complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[49] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest
(wiki)
Correct, it was atheism v science
But for Hoyle, absolutely it was atheism v religion - by his own explicit arguments, his not mine.
My point exactly, Lemaitre, Planck, Galileo- greatest scientific discoveries of all time..
In stark contrast:
Pop science atheist celebs like Hawking, Dawkins, Hoyle, Tyson, Sagan,..celebrated as great scientists today, won more awards, sold more books, filled more lecture halls, more TV appearances certainly. Yet their combined contribution to actual scientific discovery? falls somewhere behind the inventor of the chip clip, correct me if I'm wrong.
Lemaitre never received a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time, and is barely known today.
My only core point here is that science the method, a proven scientific record, is worth more than any award, celebrity, popularity, academic consensus, would you not at least agree with this?
Last edited:
I suppose you are correct. I was just wondering what you were leading up to when you asked if the scientific method was scientific or not.
Shad
Veteran Member
Correct. Natural Philosophy is the termed used to describe the foundations and methods used prior to modern science. Modern science still uses a lot of ideas from philosophy. However there were major changes over time that separated science from philosophy. The key difference is empiricism became a major standard. Science is also the reason why philosophy has been in decline as it become a viable and more accessible career path for the average person. Tenure and selling books became one of the only viable options for a philosopher besides becoming a polymath that supports their philosophical work under another career path.
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
It's not an unambiguous observation, and it still doesn't mean what you want it to. Essentially he's saying "It does look like this, but it's not". If your only point is "it does look like this", then great, he supports you. But that's not your point. And he said nothing about an absence of evidence, so there is no explanation needed.
I'm fascinated that you think those two comments are in opposition to each other. Can you explain why you think that?
Depends on what you mean. We can watch one cell turn into a human being directly. It happens every time a baby is conceived and born. If you specifically mean watching the evolution of living things that played out over the course of billions of years, then no, we can't watch it directly, obviously. Just like we can't go back and watch a murder as it happened, unless we have video of it. But in both cases, we can gather more than enough evidence to prove what happened.
I'd prefer you just listened the first time I told you:
Right, so the opinion of scientists is distinct from the scientific method,
we must stop agreeing, what fun is that
Of course the opinions of scientists are distinct from the scientific method. What's your point?
There's only one major catch here. That group, "almost every major cosmologist", includes mostly religious people. I have no doubt some cosmologists were leery of Lemaitre and his theory because they thought he was trying to push something akin to intelligent design, but that doesn't support your whole "atheism vs. science" nonsense.
Incorrect, it was " the accepted view of the time held by all scientists - religious or not- vs. a new idea brought up by one scientist." I'd really rather not have to keep repeating myself.
Let's just go with this. So, now you've proven that one scientist couldn't get over his objection to a theory. You have not proven "science vs. atheism".
"Pop science atheist celebs"? Hahahaha, wow. You're ridiculous. They are all very good scientists. Just because they haven't made a huge, earth-shattering discovery doesn't mean they're not good scientists. Tyson doesn't even call himself an atheist.
1) The scientists you mention got a lot of attention and fame, but you're comparing them to scientists right now. That's a ridiculous comparison when talking about "awards, books, lecture halls, TV appearances".
2) No, their combined contribution to actual scientific discovery doesn't fall somewhere behind the inventor of the chip clip. Hawkins is a brilliant physicist whose work on black holes has been hugely important. Dawkins has done great work in biology and evolution. Tyson and Sagan aren't particularly celebrated as great scientists and haven't won many awards. Their specialty is teaching others and making science more popular and accessible.
You also left out Einstein. His thoughts on religion are famously hard to fully pin down, but at worst he was a pantheist and opposed to organized religion. And he made one of the greatest scientific discoveries in history.
That is not your only point, but it is a meaningless point.
A questioning mind is excellent to find the truth keep questioning
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
So Scientific Method itself is not scientific.
Regards