Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Fundamentalism and science

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by cthia   » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:16 pm

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 13794
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

cthia wrote:
Joat42 wrote:No, I'm not. What you linked to is an argument based on the notion that God actually exists and how he controls the predestination of each individual's faith.

Predestination isn't about control. It is about God choosing those who he knows will choose him.

Something which cannot be known in advance unless their choosing him has been predetermined. Which is exerting control.

Your own post says that Christians are predestined to have faith because they have this one distinctive gene.


gcomeau wrote:There is a difference between predisposition and predestination.

In light of the context of the discussion, along with the implications of the link in joat's post, I was connecting the dots a bit further. Although, predisposition is a subset - and requirement - of predestination.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by Joat42   » Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:44 pm

Joat42
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

cthia wrote:Although, predisposition is a subset - and requirement - of predestination.

There can be no predisposition if it's predestined, if predisposition mattered there can't be no predestination, ie they are mutually exclusive. And that is for the simple reason that the result of a predestination is fixed whereas a predisposition isn't.

You should read Augustine's The Doctrine of Predestination.

Edit:
The above should actually be Philip Schaff's The Doctrine of Predestination in his book "History of the Christian Church" which explains Augustine's thinking on predestination.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by The E   » Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:00 am

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2624
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

cthia wrote:Within the constraints of our own universe. There may be other universes with completely different physical laws. Which means none of our scientific truths are absolute.


A meaningless statement, as the universe we currently occupy is the only one we can make any observations on. There may be universes with gods or god-likes in them, but there is no evidence that they exist, so.....

I've searched and searched the internet for this Godometer you use to make that claim. Christians know for a fact that God exists. Perhaps it is the special gene which Joat says we have that senses the Almighty?


You don't "know for a fact", though. You strongly believe, in the absence of objective fact. Weren't you yourself engaged in a project to find objective facts? What happened to that? Have you gotten any repeatable proof yet, or is it still eluding you?

Well, everybody believes in "gods." The small "g" is money, gold, and bronze statues. The trick is not to worship them.

But I do believe the conversation is about God. The big G. K?


What's the difference? Humanity has come up with several competing concepts for divinity, yours isn't special or more true than any of the others as far as I can tell.

To quote Terry Pratchett:
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”


cthia wrote:Quite possibly in those times more than in any other time, you were either... 1) A believer or 2) A scientist or a scientist's flunky. You were either for or against God.


Is this the result of you not knowing anything about Rome except what the bible taught you?
Cos it sure seems like it.

Disbelief in something or someone who does exist makes them unreal?


There is no proof for the existence of any god. No experiment I can perform to arrive at a conclusion, no check, no test, no established standard. Therefore, as a scientifically minded person, I choose to err on the side of not giving any deference to god(s), yours or anyone else's.
There is, however, strong evidence that human cognition is predisposed to seeking patterns in the environment, a faculty that helps us handle the world and slice it up into recognizable pieces, but that can sometimes lead us to making connections that aren't there. It is better, in evolutionary terms, for us to see Lions, Tigers and Bears where there are none than for us to not see them where they are, so it is inevitable that sooner or later someone would come to the conclusion that there is a connection between unconnected events (like, for example, prayer and rain after a drought).
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by Daryl   » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:48 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3277
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

I respect cthia, and have enjoyed our chats and jousts over the years, so don't want to pile on to him on this. However, I would like a couple of questions answered.
Throughout mankind's tenure both by oral tradition and later by the written word there have been thousands of deities postulated, and venerated. Even now there are many major religions, most of which have schisms and cults.
How does a religious person know that their particular version is the real deal? Not quite so simple as to say that there are many paths to the truth, as many flatly contradict each other.

How do so many organised religions know just what rituals please their deity, and which enrage them? My thoughts are coloured by vivid 60 year old memories of being severely beaten for the heinious sin of eating meat on a Friday.
Even Friday has history "The name Friday comes from the Old English Frīġedæġ, meaning the "day of Frige", a result of an old convention associating the Germanic goddess Frigg with the Roman goddess Venus, with whom the day is associated in many different cultures." So I was punished as a small child by a Christian monk for the crime of dishonouring a pagan goddess's day?
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by gcomeau   » Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:46 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

cthia wrote:
The E wrote:... I was, until now, unaware that the faceless roman goons that supposedly nailed jesus to the cross were actually scientists.

What degrees did they have, I wonder....

A degree of stupidity and recklessness for certain.

Quite possibly in those times more than in any other time, you were either... 1) A believer or 2) A scientist or a scientist's flunky. You were either for or against God.


The degree to which this spectacularly ignores that the Romans believed in *their own* gods is stunning. The choice wasn't then, nor is it now, a binary "for or against God".

And being a non believer in God did not then, nor does it now, make you a scientist or a "scientists flunky".
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by n7axw   » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:06 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

I am going to emphasize for everyone's benefit on both sides of this discussion that religion is not a discussion of scientific facts but a confession of faith. Faith by its very nature is not scientificly provable, but is what I call the reality of the heart. One can be very confident of one's faith, but there is nothing that we can present as evidence to convince the skeptic.

On the other hand to say that there is no God is as much of a confession of faith as to say I believe in God. All of us make a wager as to which of these assertions is true. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own wager and that right should be respected by all.

As for election and predestination, I'm not getting into that thicket on a public forum. I will say that predestination was at the root of one of the nastiest controversies in the 19th century North American Lutheran Church. At any rate, I'm not going there.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by Joat42   » Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:42 pm

Joat42
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1920
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:01 am
Location: Sweden

n7axw wrote:I am going to emphasize for everyone's benefit on both sides of this discussion that religion is not a discussion of scientific facts but a confession of faith. Faith by its very nature is not scientificly provable, but is what I call the reality of the heart. One can be very confident of one's faith, but there is nothing that we can present as evidence to convince the skeptic.

Which actually has bearing on the original post. At it's root, science is all about taking a hypothesis/theory and prove it true through verifiable and repeatable tests to gain new knowledge. Faith on the other hand, means you believe something is true even if there is no tests to prove it is so.

n7axw wrote:On the other hand to say that there is no God is as much of a confession of faith as to say I believe in God. All of us make a wager as to which of these assertions is true. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own wager and that right should be respected by all.

Not really in my opinion. I don't have faith in that there is no god, I just say that until someone can prove that something exists I consider it to be nonexistent. Just like if someone say Santa is real, I will need verifiable proof that he really does and until that time I consider him to be nonexistent.

n7axw wrote:As for election and predestination, I'm not getting into that thicket on a public forum. I will say that predestination was at the root of one of the nastiest controversies in the 19th century North American Lutheran Church. At any rate, I'm not going there.

Don

-

And I understand why, since predestination opens up a whole vista of interesting conclusions that can be "somewhat" contentious.

Discussing faith, God and religion and trying to apply logic on those beliefs is kind of a stupid way to spend your time anyway since those topics doesn't lend themselves well to be logically evaluated, although the philosophical questions that arise can be interesting.

---
Jack of all trades and destructive tinkerer.


Anyone who have simple solutions for complex problems is a fool.
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by n7axw   » Wed Jun 09, 2021 10:26 am

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5867
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Joat42 wrote:
n7axw wrote:I am going to emphasize for everyone's benefit on both sides of this discussion that religion is not a discussion of scientific facts but a confession of faith. Faith by its very nature is not scientificly provable, but is what I call the reality of the heart. One can be very confident of one's faith, but there is nothing that we can present as evidence to convince the skeptic.

Which actually has bearing on the original post. At it's root, science is all about taking a hypothesis/theory and prove it true through verifiable and repeatable tests to gain new knowledge. Faith on the other hand, means you believe something is true even if there is no tests to prove it is so.

n7axw wrote:On the other hand to say that there is no God is as much of a confession of faith as to say I believe in God. All of us make a wager as to which of these assertions is true. Furthermore, everyone is entitled to their own wager and that right should be respected by all.

Not really in my opinion. I don't have faith in that there is no god, I just say that until someone can prove that something exists I consider it to be nonexistent. Just like if someone say Santa is real, I will need verifiable proof that he really does and until that time I consider him to be nonexistent.

n7axw wrote:As for election and predestination, I'm not getting into that thicket on a public forum. I will say that predestination was at the root of one of the nastiest controversies in the 19th century North American Lutheran Church. At any rate, I'm not going there.

Don

-

And I understand why, since predestination opens up a whole vista of interesting conclusions that can be "somewhat" contentious.

Discussing faith, God and religion and trying to apply logic on those beliefs is kind of a stupid way to spend your time anyway since those topics doesn't lend themselves well to be logically evaluated, although the philosophical questions that arise can be interesting.


Agree, mostly. However within the realm of faith, logic can be applied. The difference really hasn't to with logic or illogic. It has to do with the premises. If one presupposes, for example, that science and it's methods are an exclusive avenue for discovering truth, you will arrive at one set of conclusions. If you start out with God as the premise, your conclusions will be different.

Don

-
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by gcomeau   » Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:19 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

n7axw wrote:
Joat42 wrote:And I understand why, since predestination opens up a whole vista of interesting conclusions that can be "somewhat" contentious.

Discussing faith, God and religion and trying to apply logic on those beliefs is kind of a stupid way to spend your time anyway since those topics doesn't lend themselves well to be logically evaluated, although the philosophical questions that arise can be interesting.


Agree, mostly. However within the realm of faith, logic can be applied. The difference really hasn't to with logic or illogic. It has to do with the premises. If one presupposes, for example, that science and it's methods are an exclusive avenue for discovering truth, you will arrive at one set of conclusions. If you start out with God as the premise, your conclusions will be different.

Don


Ok, yes if you presuppose your conclusion then you can apply logic given that presupposition and "logic out" things that are internally consistent with the presupposed conclusion. But you're just completely distorting the situation to act like the choices are "presuppose science" or "presuppose God" like those are two sides of a coin.

God is the conclusion religious believers want people to reach. Science is a time tested and demonstrated process for discovering knowledge. Those are not equivalent things.

The equivalent of "starting out with God" as the premise of a logical argument about God existing would be saying you're constructing a logical argument gravity exists and starting it off with "Ok, first assume gravity exists".

I mean from there you can construct any logical argument you want to "prove" that thing you adopted as a given as step 1.

And even if you're trying to say the alternatives are to assume science or assume god to explain other things about the world it still doesn't work. Because when you assume science that comes with rules. If science is assumed to be a valid way of investigating the world then there are things we expect to see if that is true and things we expect to see if that is false. So you can then test your scientific assumption. Which we have. For centuries. It keeps generating accurate verifiable information.

If you start with assuming God then *anything* can be claimed to be evidence that assumption is true and *nothing* counts as evidence that assumption is false. Absolutely any observation or result can be dealt with with "God works in mysterious ways" or "we cannot know the mind of God" or "God's powers are unfathomable and limitless" etc... making "God exists" absolutely and utterly useless as a premise if you want to explain anything about the world we live in. Because in explaining every possible thing with magic handwavium it explains literally nothing.

Which is why the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through science fills vast libraries and the sum total of knowledge about the universe we have acquired through religion is... literally zero. Ever.
Top
Re: Fundamentalism and science
Post by Relax   » Thu Jun 10, 2021 4:03 pm

Relax
Admiral

Posts: 2922
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

I find the "fundamentalism" debate rather droll, humorous.

Fundamentalism is alive and well in All faiths, be it Atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

Why? Most people do not enjoy naval gazing as 1) their naval is often ugly and 2) do not have the time to devote towards determining perfect truth on which to base everything. So instead wave a hand at things they truly do not want to discuss. Note, I said WANT.

Science(logic) is a tool; nothing more. It is a method for determining how things work. It does not create said things to begin with.

Atheists believe with fundamental unwavering conviction that everything came from nothing and that every order we see today came from chaos... even though science tells us the opposite is true. Naturally, they believe science is their foundation... even though their foundation tells them they are wrong. Go figure.

Christians believe with fundamental unwavering conviction that everything came from God, and that order is the result. And the scientific method shows this to be true of the world going from order to chaos. Naturally they believe both science(logic) and God is their foundation even though one can never prove with science that God exists. Go figure.

Look no further than the AGW theory for fundamentalism.

1) CO2 caused by humans burning coal/oil/NG, enters atmosphere
2) CO2 goes into the UPPER atmosphere at a guesstimated rate
3) Since Earth sheds heat at the poles and collects heat over the equator, pushing said heat to the poles, then this increased CO2 in the UPPER atmosphere will reflect radiation BACK to the earth creating a slightly thicker blanket over the equator. CO2 in lower atmosphere does nothing other than the very tiny increase in partial pressure. Why? Because the CO2 will intercept those frequencies of light before they hit all the water vapor and other gases in the lower atmosphere and 100% absorb them making said CO2 useless as a blanket...
4) Thicker blanket should increase temperatures in the Upper atmosphere over the equator due to increase of CO2 in upper atmosphere pushing extra heat to the poles to be radiated to space...

Naturally big predictions were made for increase of CO2 in upper atmosphere with hockey stick graphs in hand where they completely eradicated temp records around the world and other proxies which showed the opposite(<<cough>> tree rings, but only published the one study) to make a nice flat line... The world was going to end, we better look into this before we kill ourselves out of arrogant hubris. Now throw in the Ozone hole debate going on at the same time and... Everyone said, Ok, lets look. Balloons are cheap.

What did we find in the 1990's? CO2, in the upper atmosphere was rising at 10% of predicted which fell smack dab right onto the edge of the error band of zero effect.

So, naturally everyone pro/con claimed victory. And here Fundamentalists on both sides took over. And this is where politics enters the fray as changing the world based on a null from science is not exactly a genius idea.

One side of fundamentalists said see, we can burn with impunity, even though oil/gas/coal is not infinite, nor universal in distribution, the other side said we are all going to die and you are anti science murderers...

So, naturally, the first thing that happened after the balloon testing was done is the AGW's Fundamentalists changed the name from AGW to climate change. Why? AGW clearly cannot be proven by science and claiming so makes you look like an illiterate science denier as the evidence shows a null. So instead we will call it "climate change"... Which has no definition and that way we can ALWAYS be right even as we throw out the thermometer data in rural areas and keep city data even though we know city island heating effect increases with increasing population, increasing urbanization, and increasing power consumption per capita. Sure, lets keep that data, that way we can manipulate it to our hearts content and call it "corrections" as if someone in the 1880's cannot read a thermometer to within 0.2C let alone 1C. Oh right, once we grab the reigns of funding, due to politicians being closer to realists instead of Utopians, as the end of oil/ng is nigh and we need a new source of power(True), we can then quietly change the definition of climate change to mean --> AGW which was resoundingly deflated by their own predictions. We just won't bring up that very basic SCIENTIFIC fundamental fact anymore... But hey, while we are at it, lets label everyone else anti science denialists... Oh the Hypocrisy is ripe.

How did the AGW's fundamentalists gain political power? Simple, there is no opposition to speak of as the opposition is not on a religious crusade, but rather a pragmatic one which sees the fact that Oil/NG/coal are running out and geopolitics for your way of life dictate you need Energy to survive. So, where are most fundamentalists located in power? Ivory towers(higher education centers) across the globe as they do not have to actually produce a viable product valuable to everyone else in everyday life, but here this is not quite true as scientists/engineers all see oil/ng/coal running out and want funding for new projects be it private or public so neither side will complain about funding such projects. But where do more fundamentalists reside on a national basis? Europe, who has run out of Coal, oil, gas before anyone else and wish to preserve their way of life. Europe who sees this gigantic energy IMPORT bill come due every day of every month of every year and know damned well that this import bill effectively makes them serfs for those who have said energy and NO ONE likes being a serf/slave/beggar. This also coincided with the USA's own gigantic import bill of energy until VERY recently(shale oil) so most in the USA were more than willing to go along with the ruse.

The rest of the world on this issue? DO not give a damn, they just want refrigeration and a car. Spoiled food and walking are getting droll. If temps rise 2C, they do not give a damn if it means they do not have to walk the 2m up to higher ground and they get better food and do not have to walk that short distance uphill while the rich boys at tidewater have to move.
_________
Tally Ho!
Relax
Top

Return to Politics