Let's not have any more doubts ...

[Jorge]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Jorge

[docpotato]

It is not always beneficial to extrapolate the whole from one example.

[TheGreenMan]

It is not always beneficial to extrapolate the whole from one example.
And even if you do, people have been criticized(sp) for taking peoples personal views and applying them to science. I.e. Dembskis belief that God created the world applied to ID.
Post more later got to go.
Thanks

[Jorge]

It is not always beneficial to extrapolate the whole from one example.
Are you trying to be funny? No one is "extrapolating" as you insinuate. However, don't let it escape your attention that Weinberg is one of the big weenies in mainstream science and when he speaks he undoubtedly speaks for many. Just read the link I provided, see for yourself, and try to not be as naive. Thanks.

Jorge

[Minnesota]

Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.

So what? Look at all the goofy stuff you've said. Look at all the goofy stuff many of your religious leaders have said. Did you think creationists had a lock on goofy? It only seems that way because almost everything they say is goofy. Fact is, science also has it share of goofy, although it's far smaller than that of creationism, but a share none-the-less. Percentage-wise creationists are still leaders of the goofy-pack, by an enormous margin.

[Roy]

Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Yup.

"Philosophy is useless; theology is worse." (M. Knopfler)

Roy

[wattsr1]

Are you trying to be funny? No one is "extrapolating" as you insinuate. However, don't let it escape your attention that Weinberg is one of the big weenies in mainstream science and when he speaks he undoubtedly speaks for many. Just read the link I provided, see for yourself, and try to not be as naive. Thanks.

Jorge


Gidday Jorge,


So exactly what point are you trying to make?

1) That evolution is anti-religion because one person amongst many evolutionists, Weinberg, is anti-religion?
2) That mainstream science is anti-religion because one person amongst many scientists, Weinberg, is anti-religion?
3) That mainstream science is anti-religion because one person amongst many has used science in a metaphysical argument?
4) Or what?

On points 1) and 2), Docpotato is correct. Weinberg is just one person, even if, as you say, he speaks for many. Weinberg is not all scientists. Nor is he all evolutionists, including those who accept macro evolution. On point 3), so what, given that your side, infact all sides, use science in metaphysical arguments? Who on earth are you to point the finger (if that is what you are doing)?

Hence your:-


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

appears to me to be nothing more than argument by inuendo. If it is, then what does it have to do with the TRUTH ™?

And your admonishment of Docpotato:-


Are you trying to be funny? No one is "extrapolating" as you insinuate. However, don't let it escape your attention that Weinberg is one of the big weenies in mainstream science and when he speaks he undoubtedly speaks for many. Just read the link I provided, see for yourself, and try to not be as naive.

is nothing more than a cheap shot from you.

So how about telling us (I have deliberately used the word “us”) exactly what the “message” is. Stop being so coy if you really do have the TRUTH ™ on your side. Is it that indefensible that you need to argue by inuendo and false accusation?


Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

So what? Look at all the goofy stuff you've said. Look at all the goofy stuff many of your religious leaders have said. Did you think creationists had a lock on goofy? It only seems that way because almost everything they say is goofy. Fact is, science also has it share of goofy, although it's far smaller than that of creationism, but a share none-the-less. Percentage-wise creationists are still leaders of the goofy-pack, by an enormous margin.
Yeah, I think we got it : since Nobel laureate Weinberg has amply supported what Jorge ("who cannot be right") has been saying for a long time then, in your book, that makes him "goofy". That's outstanding logic!

Jorge

[Jorge]

Gidday Jorge,


So exactly what point are you trying to make?

1) That evolution is anti-religion because one person amongst many evolutionists, Weinberg, is anti-religion?
2) That mainstream science is anti-religion because one person amongst many scientists, Weinberg, is anti-religion?
3) That mainstream science is anti-religion because one person amongst many has used science in a metaphysical argument?
4) Or what?

On points 1) and 2), Docpotato is correct. Weinberg is just one person, even if, as you say, he speaks for many. Weinberg is not all scientists. Nor is he all evolutionists, including those who accept macro evolution. On point 3), so what, given that your side, infact all sides, use science in metaphysical arguments? Who on earth are you to point the finger (if that is what you are doing)?

Hence your:-



appears to me to be nothing more than argument by inuendo. If it is, then what does it have to do with the TRUTH ™?

And your admonishment of Docpotato:-



is nothing more than a cheap shot from you.

So how about telling us (I have deliberately used the word “us”) exactly what the “message” is. Stop being so coy if you really do have the TRUTH ™ on your side. Is it that indefensible that you need to argue by inuendo and false accusation?


Regards, Roland
If you can't figure out what the "message" is, then you are far, far more gone than I dared imagine even in my deepest nightmare. I say you can figure it out - nobody can be that far gone.

Jorge

[Minnesota]

since Nobel laureate Weinberg has amply supported what Jorge ("who cannot be right") has been saying for a long time then, in your book, that makes him "goofy". That's outstanding logic!

Sorry, I didn't realize you too were claiming that the demise of religion is one if not the most important contribution of science.

[EvoUK]

He's obviously an atheist, who shares the same view as a large percentage of other athesits- reducing the amount of people who believe in self evident rubbish.

While I'll be hesitant to include religious belief as a whole (a psychological crutch is important to some people), I'd Love to see a reduction in the amount of YEC creationism, as it's depressing that a member of my species in this day and age actually believes that crap.

[sylas]

I'm inclined to agree with Weinberg that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief.

Does anyone here actually disagree? I'm sure there are some who disagree; but I'd be interested to see them spell out what they mean.

There's little doubt that scientists tend to be non-believers by comparison with the rest of the population; and this tendency becomes stronger as for more prominent scientists who stand out for scientific excellence. Non-belief is becoming increasingly common, and many individuals specifically identify science as a reason for their loss of faith.

There is room to dispute the reasoning of various individuals, and to argue for a position of compatibility. But as a matter of simple statistics, it seems that evidence linking education in science to an erosion of Christian beliefs is strong. In this sense, the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief.

The real question is… what should Christians do about it?

Change the content of science?

The most common reaction is to try and stem the erosion by altering the way science is taught. This usually means changing the actual content of science: to incorporate within science such things as a young earth; or the notion of intelligent design of living organisms as a scientific model to contrast with evolution.

In my view, this approach is a complete failure. It is one of the major contributory factors for the erosion of religious belief. This approach deliberately stakes out ground for religious belief in precisely those areas that science is most effectively eroding. Creationists simply cannot muster a coherent empirical argument; they are trying to get into schools ideas that have failed catastrophically to make any impact in the world of science. The scientific world is full of conflicting hypotheses and a ferment of intense debate, and the past is littered with the remains of ideas that have been falsified or refined. The debate in science is substantive, and it makes progress. It's not some kind of endless postmodernism in which alternative perspectives hang around forever; it's a brutal killing field for ideas. What we teach are the ideas that have proved themselves; and the specifics of scientific creationists have failed to make the slightest headway.

Change the philosophy of science?

Another common reaction is to try and teach a philosophy of science that admits religious belief.

This approach is based on a fundamental misconception. The philosophy of science already allows for religious beliefs. Though a minority, there are believers and Christians right throughout the scientific world, right in the mainstream. Their scientific work is seamlessly a part of the whole edifice of modern science; nothing in science prohibits this.

Jorge's frequent claims about a particular metaphysic in science don't stand any serious examination. Scientists include theists, atheists, agnostics, Christians, deists, pantheists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others; all with completely diverse metaphysical perspectives. The metaphysics of philosophic naturalism – which is my own position – is not universal, and is not required to do good science. Philosophical naturalism is not a scientific model. The naturalism that is common through science is simply its subject matter. Scientists look at the natural world; at causes and effects in the natural world; at the regularities that can be described and evaluated against observations of the natural world. The metaphysic behind it all makes no difference. Whether the processes are established and maintained by a divine intelligence, or whether they are simply the way things happen of their own accord, we still just look at those processes and model them as best we may.

Too often, the desire to change the philosophy of science is an attempt to alter content indirectly. It is a way of avoiding the fundamental problem that the evidence shows an ancient Earth, or blood relationships between diverse species, or a capacity for intricate adaptive complexity to arise spontaneously from the natural workings of reproduction and inheritance. This won't work either. The problem for creationists is with evidence; and there's no way out of dealing with that… specifically and in detail.

I do think it would be worth teaching about the history of science and the diversity of beliefs and metaphysical perspectives that are held by scientists.

Teach religious beliefs that take into account what we know of the natural world?

This is, I suspect, the key. But it's a problem. Christian beliefs are diverse. Some Christians have already developed a theological and religious perspective that combines Christian beliefs with acceptance of modern science; and many attempt to teach it.

But others are teaching that certain core beliefs of Christianity are incompatible with some of the claims of conventional science. In particular, many people believe that to read Genesis is to read what God himself says about formation of the natural world; and further insist that the only reasonable way to understand this is as a comparatively straightforward account of events. There may be other layers and lessons incorporated, but if God says six days, then it was six days and that settles the matter.

This is why the teaching of science will continue to erode religious beliefs.

To every action, a reaction.

There is another side to this coin. Christian beliefs are a major contributing cause to an erosion of teaching science, in the USA in particular. Not all Christians, by any means; but in general there is a concerted and deliberate campaign to erode science education, especially where it relates to biology, evolution or anything relating to the past. This is mostly driven by people who are Christians.

Cheers -- Sylas

[aniso]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Jorge




So you have someone's opinion. I am surprised that you seem to hold it in such high regard as to bring it here. If your religion cannot withstand this, then it isn't much of a religion, is it? Is your faith really that weak?

[oxmixmudd]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Jorge




There are many who actually violently oppose religion of all types. Some of the worst was the communism of Russion and China. Many lost their lives over just such an attitude. Conversely, many have lost their lives at the hands of militant Islamists in the Sudan and at the hands of Christians in the crusades or maoists in Nepal, or drug runners in columbia, or blacks at the hands of the KKK in the south. Weinberg's views express the kind of bigotry that is destructive to all of humanity regardless its preferred or targetted ideologies. And it is reasonable to watch for bias in his presentation of science, given his views. But one can't reject any bit of science he happens to support simply because he holds these views. They must be evaluated independent of his support or rejection.

Ideally, in the Christian faith is tolerance of other points of view while still believing and accepting and promoting its own POV. In general, the best thing we can do to make our case is to simply make intelligent counter arguments and think carefully about the implications of the discoveries of science on our faith. We also must make sure we are well educated and positioned to provide thoughtful criticism when it is warrented, keeping in mind anyone (theist or non-theist) with strong ideological views must, over time, establish themselves as unbiased observers in order to earn the right to provide meaningful commentary or correction.

Jim

[Mark Little]

Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.Yep. You are getting all hot and bothered because someone is expressing opinions similar to your own, but from the other side of the fence.

You see yourself in the looking glass darkly and don't like what you see.

I think the message was clear enough.

[wattsr1]

If you can't figure out what the "message" is, then you are far, far more gone than I dared imagine even in my deepest nightmare. I say you can figure it out - nobody can be that far gone.

Jorge



Yes Jorge, I am actually that far gone.

So tell me what the message is.



Regards, Roland

[FreezBee]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.


Yes, that “... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

And what's wrong with that? Do you need to have your relationship with God go through some other person, who is more concerned about your money than your soul?


- FreezBee

[Jorge]

I'm inclined to agree with Weinberg that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief.

Does anyone here actually disagree? I'm sure there are some who disagree; but I'd be interested to see them spell out what they mean.
I totally agree! The teaching of modern, mainstream science (which is based on a materialistic world view)
is most definitely corrosive to religious belief. This is so by definition (see below).


There's little doubt that scientists tend to be non-believers by comparison with the rest of the population; and this tendency becomes stronger as for more prominent scientists who stand out for scientific excellence. Non-belief is becoming increasingly common, and many individuals specifically identify science as a reason for their loss of faith.
Yup - this is almost tautological. As lil' ol' Jorge has been saying from day one, since the issues are fundamentally ideological (not scientific) then what we see is people shifting ideology. Thus, as one would expect, the proportion of non-believing (in a non-material reality ... in God) 'scientists' is statistically significantly larger than for the rest of the population. Likewise, the more 'science' is adopted (i.e., a materialistic ideology), the greater the loss of faith (in a non-material reality ... in God).

This, to me, is so utterly obvious that I'm amazed that anyone would question it (but they do).


There is room to dispute the reasoning of various individuals, and to argue for a position of compatibility. But as a matter of simple statistics, it seems that evidence linking education in science to an erosion of Christian beliefs is strong. In this sense, the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief.
Absolutely!


The real question is… what should Christians do about it?
Resist, fight and teach the truth ... whenever, wherever.


Change the content of science?

The most common reaction is to try and stem the erosion by altering the way science is taught. This usually means changing the actual content of science: to incorporate within science such things as a young earth; or the notion of intelligent design of living organisms as a scientific model to contrast with evolution.

In my view, this approach is a complete failure. It is one of the major contributory factors for the erosion of religious belief. This approach deliberately stakes out ground for religious belief in precisely those areas that science is most effectively eroding. Creationists simply cannot muster a coherent empirical argument; they are trying to get into schools ideas that have failed catastrophically to make any impact in the world of science. The scientific world is full of conflicting hypotheses and a ferment of intense debate, and the past is littered with the remains of ideas that have been falsified or refined. The debate in science is substantive, and it makes progress. It's not some kind of endless postmodernism in which alternative perspectives hang around forever; it's a brutal killing field for ideas. What we teach are the ideas that have proved themselves; and the specifics of scientific creationists have failed to make the slightest headway.

Change the philosophy of science?

Another common reaction is to try and teach a philosophy of science that admits religious belief.

This approach is based on a fundamental misconception. The philosophy of science already allows for religious beliefs. Though a minority, there are believers and Christians right throughout the scientific world, right in the mainstream. Their scientific work is seamlessly a part of the whole edifice of modern science; nothing in science prohibits this.
I'd love to but don't have time to comment.


Jorge's frequent claims about a particular metaphysic in science don't stand any serious examination. Scientists include theists, atheists, agnostics, Christians, deists, pantheists, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and many others; all with completely diverse metaphysical perspectives.
Arrrggghhh!!! That's because true science is mostly ideologically inert - I've been through this umpteen times before! Why do you wish to promote the falsehood that the point has escaped my attention?


The metaphysics of philosophic naturalism – which is my own position – is not universal, and is not required to do good science.
That's right, and this is so because true science is sufficiently inert (metaphysically-speaking) to allow any belief including PN to work within it. I've stated this all along.


Philosophical naturalism is not a scientific model. The naturalism that is common through science is simply its subject matter. Scientists look at the natural world; at causes and effects in the natural world; at the regularities that can be described and evaluated against observations of the natural world. The metaphysic behind it all makes no difference. Whether the processes are established and maintained by a divine intelligence, or whether they are simply the way things happen of their own accord, we still just look at those processes and model them as best we may.
DITTO.


Too often, the desire to change the philosophy of science is an attempt to alter content indirectly. It is a way of avoiding the fundamental problem that the evidence shows an ancient Earth, or blood relationships between diverse species, or a capacity for intricate adaptive complexity to arise spontaneously from the natural workings of reproduction and inheritance. This won't work either. The problem for creationists is with evidence; and there's no way out of dealing with that… specifically and in detail.

I do think it would be worth teaching about the history of science and the diversity of beliefs and metaphysical perspectives that are held by scientists.

Teach religious beliefs that take into account what we know of the natural world?

This is, I suspect, the key. But it's a problem. Christian beliefs are diverse. Some Christians have already developed a theological and religious perspective that combines Christian beliefs with acceptance of modern science; and many attempt to teach it.

But others are teaching that certain core beliefs of Christianity are incompatible with some of the claims of conventional science. In particular, many people believe that to read Genesis is to read what God himself says about formation of the natural world; and further insist that the only reasonable way to understand this is as a comparatively straightforward account of events. There may be other layers and lessons incorporated, but if God says six days, then it was six days and that settles the matter.

This is why the teaching of science will continue to erode religious beliefs.

To every action, a reaction.

There is another side to this coin. Christian beliefs are a major contributing cause to an erosion of teaching science, in the USA in particular. Not all Christians, by any means; but in general there is a concerted and deliberate campaign to erode science education, especially where it relates to biology, evolution or anything relating to the past. This is mostly driven by people who are Christians.
Not enough time to respond to so much.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Yes, that “... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

And what's wrong with that? Do you need to have your relationship with God go through some other person, who is more concerned about your money than your soul?

- FreezBee
Uh ... you've missed the point, FreezBee. Weinberg et al. wants it all gone, not just the priests and ministers. And, no, I do not "go through any earthly person" in my relationship with God.

Jorge

[FreezBee]

Uh ... you've missed the point, FreezBee. Weinberg et al. wants it all gone, not just the priests and ministers.

Well, some people occasionally go a bit too far, ya know - at least he is the right side, though maybe slighty too far out. Think about it: he might have been an ID books salesman instead :eek:



And, no, I do not "go through any earthly person" in my relationship with God.

You "do not go through any earthly person" in your relationship with God. Through an ET then maybe? Doy yoy know, what the ETs use your money for? Have you really checked that out? Maybe they use them to finance an upgraded version of the E. coli flagellum. We'll have to check in the future, whether the E. coli genome spells "Donated by Jorge A. Fernandez" in some language.


- FreezBee

[TheGreenMan]

Well, I was going to post more but I think everything was fairly well discussed.


Arrrggghhh!!! That's because true science is mostly ideologically inert
I always love this reasoning. It never seems to be consistent. Basically it comes down to being able to directly or indirectly observing something. If it doesn't contradict the Bible it is inert and fine. However if it contradicts the Bible no matter which is true it is not inert especially if it is observe red indirectly. But:
1. no one has seen gravity, only its effects, and no YEC is saying the theory of gravity is false.
2. Until 1996 no one ever directly saw the surface of a star. I.e. it was a source point not an actual object. So stars could have been small dots for all we could observe directly. But there was no doubt among YECS that stars were suns, but they could have been something completely different.
3. No one has seen extrasolar planets (maybe, there is one picture that might be one) but even YECs say that they are planets. (According to AiG.)

I always love the; "You must be able to see it for it to be true, unless the Bible says otherwise" argument. It is always so consistent.

[Roy]

2. Until 1996 no one ever directly saw the surface of a star. I.e. it was a source point not an actual object. So stars could have been small dots for all we could observe directly. But there was no doubt among YECS that stars were suns, but they could have been something completely different.

Sure? There are passages in the bible that talk about stars falling to earth. According to the bible they are small dots.

Roy

[chickenman]

That's right, and this is so because true science is sufficiently inert (metaphysically-speaking) to allow any belief including PN to work within it. I've stated this all along. you have failed umpteen times to demonstrate a non-subjective method for deciding what is "inert" and what isn't

ultimately your argument ends up being nothing other than a self serving ad hoc rationalisation for cutting out the bits of science that you don't like

[bandecoot]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Jorge





Yep message received loud and clear. Weinberg thinks religion is worthless. Bully for him.

I think religion has served a very useful social structure for hundreds of thousands of years.

It would be simpleminded to think that that much inertia can be overcome in a few hundred years. It would be pointless to try.

The relatively new Idea of YEC as practiced today will get dissolved in fairly short order. As well it should, it is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person that the same "neutral" Physics that can create the theory behind fission powerplants and TNW cannot be used to accurately date the planet.

The creationist part worries me not at all, thats an opinion. Its the "young" part that spits in the face of credulity.

[TheGreenMan]

Yep message received loud and clear. Weinberg thinks religion is worthless. Bully for him.

I think religion has served a very useful social structure for hundreds of thousands of years.

It would be simpleminded to think that that much inertia can be overcome in a few hundred years. It would be pointless to try.

The relatively new Idea of YEC as practiced today will get dissolved in fairly short order. As well it should, it is an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person that the same "neutral" Physics that can create the theory behind fission powerplants and TNW cannot be used to accurately date the planet.

The creationist part worries me not at all, thats an opinion. Its the "young" part that spits in the face of credulity.
Here! Here!

:thumb:

[oxmixmudd]

Sure? There are passages in the bible that talk about stars falling to earth. According to the bible they are small dots.

Roy

My guess is this is a phenominological reference to meteors. One thing most people don't realize in our light polluted world is that only the brightest of meteors appear to have tails. Most that you would see on a normal night observing look exactly like what the poetic description "falling stars" would imply - dim to moderately bright dots 'falling' across the sky. The resemblence to a star that 'broke loose' from the 'firmament' and fell to Earth is uncanny.


Jim

[FreezBee]

My guess is this is a phenominological reference to meteors. One thing most people don't realize in our light polluted world is that only the brightest of meteors appear to have tails. Most that you would see on a normal night observing look exactly like what the poetic description "falling stars" would imply - dim to moderately bright dots 'falling' across the sky. The resemblence to a star that 'broke loose' from the 'firmament' and fell to Earth is uncanny.

Yes, and not only that: they are the sons of God who fell from heaven to earth to have sexual intercourse with earthly women.

Let me once again quote

while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse uses the parallellism typical of Se,itic poetry - the two lines are two ways of saying the same. That is, the sons of God here are (morning) stars.

This is all very poetic; but can hardly count as science, can it?


- FreezBee

[oxmixmudd]

Yes, and not only that: they are the sons of God who fell from heaven to earth to have sexual intercourse with earthly women.

Let me once again quote

while the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

This verse uses the parallellism typical of Se,itic poetry - the two lines are two ways of saying the same. That is, the sons of God here are (morning) stars.

This is all very poetic; but can hardly count as science, can it?


- FreezBee

Interesting references, but no - they are not science or scientific descriptions. To assume these passages are literal would not be a useful way to understand the meaning - and would likely produce a very bizarre theology! :wink: I think the Sons of God mating with human women has been used to support alien visitors in the past etc. etc.

Jim

[wattsr1]

Well, I was going to post more but I think everything was fairly well discussed.


I always love this reasoning. It never seems to be consistent. Basically it comes down to being able to directly or indirectly observing something. If it doesn't contradict the Bible it is inert and fine. However if it contradicts the Bible no matter which is true it is not inert especially if it is observe red indirectly. But:
1. no one has seen gravity, only its effects, and no YEC is saying the theory of gravity is false.
2. Until 1996 no one ever directly saw the surface of a star. I.e. it was a source point not an actual object. So stars could have been small dots for all we could observe directly. But there was no doubt among YECS that stars were suns, but they could have been something completely different.
3. No one has seen extrasolar planets (maybe, there is one picture that might be one) but even YECs say that they are planets. (According to AiG.)

I always love the; "You must be able to see it for it to be true, unless the Bible says otherwise" argument. It is always so consistent.

The closest Jorge has come to defining "inert" to me is by way of example. He then produces the most banal examples:-

- "2+3=5",
- making faster cars,
- making better toothpaste,
- measuring the hardness of a material,
- making toasters.


Regards, Roland

[Roy]

My guess is this is a phenominological reference to meteors.

'Fraid not. We have:And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.This coud possibly be a reference to the stars being extinguished, or concealed somehow; but then there's this:
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.Definitely stars not meteors, and definitely falling to Earth. That it's a prophecy doesn't change the fact that the author thinks that the stars could fall to earth. There's also:And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earthAgain, the stars (a sizeable fraction of them, not just a few not meteors) are being cast on the earth, so must be small enough that they can be, i.e. the author thinks stars are small dots and not immense suns.


One thing most people don't realize in our light polluted world is that only the brightest of meteors appear to have tails. Most that you would see on a normal night observing look exactly like what the poetic description "falling stars" would imply - dim to moderately bright dots 'falling' across the sky. The resemblence to a star that 'broke loose' from the 'firmament' and fell to Earth is uncanny.

If the passages referred to single stars falling to earth, then I'd accept this. But they don't - they talk about all the stars falling to earth.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

'Fraid not. We have:And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.This coud possibly be a reference to the stars being extinguished, or concealed somehow; but then there's this:
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.Definitely stars not meteors, and definitely falling to Earth. That it's a prophecy doesn't change the fact that the author thinks that the stars could fall to earth. There's also:And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earthAgain, the stars (a sizeable fraction of them, not just a few not meteors) are being cast on the earth, so must be small enough that they can be, i.e. the author thinks stars are small dots and not immense suns.



If the passages referred to single stars falling to earth, then I'd accept this. But they don't - they talk about all the stars falling to earth.

Roy

Hmmm, these passages are all apocalyptic and therefore known to be symbolic or representative of the end of time and the universe from when they where uttered (the one about the third part of the stars from heaven is specifically about the fallen angels taken by Satan in his rebellion).

However, that said, I would never presume that the Biblical writers had the slightest clue what stars really are. And my reference to how most falling stars look is simply to explain why an ancient writer would have thought stars sometimes fall to Earth. The ancients typically associated events in the sky with major spiritual or historical events or portents of future events. The use of such symbolism in the Bible would reflect this tendency, but I don't see it as undermining its authority.

That is, what I am trying to get at is I don't think these references form a valid reason for dismissing scripture.

But I apologize Roy - I kind of lost track of what this was about and need to go. So if I'm not on target, I'm requesting a pass this time. Other threads are taking priority right now ...


Jim

[Viktor Scott]

Yep. You are getting all hot and bothered because someone is expressing opinions similar to your own, but from the other side of the fence.

You see yourself in the looking glass darkly and don't like what you see.

I think the message was clear enough.

Excellent point.

[Viktor Scott]

I totally agree! The teaching of modern, mainstream science (which is based on a materialistic world view)
is most definitely corrosive to religious belief. This is so by definition (see below).
And how, exactly, is science to be taught in a supernaturalistic anti-materialist worldview? I've seen 'science' programs on the Christian TV channel we have here - there is a lot of 'This is how God did this... isn't it amazinhg??!!??' type stuff. Is that the difference? That a data point or set of facts is explained, but punctuated with some praise and awe?

Yup - this is almost tautological. As lil' ol' Jorge has been saying from day one, since the issues are fundamentally ideological (not scientific) then what we see is people shifting ideology. Thus, as one would expect, the proportion of non-believing (in a non-material reality ... in God) 'scientists' is statistically significantly larger than for the rest of the population. Likewise, the more 'science' is adopted (i.e., a materialistic ideology), the greater the loss of faith (in a non-material reality ... in God). And there is no way that the more a person learns, the less likely the are, in general, to find supernaturalistic metaphysics intellectually satisfying?
Resist, fight and teach the truth ... whenever, wherever.
Hmmm... And you know that you know the Truth how, again?

Arrrggghhh!!! That's because true science is mostly ideologically inert - I've been through this umpteen times before!
And so you acknowledge that things like Gitt's "laws" of infromation are not true science then. That is a good start.

[Viktor Scott]

you have failed umpteen times to demonstrate a non-subjective method for deciding what is "inert" and what isn't

ultimately your argument ends up being nothing other than a self serving ad hoc rationalisation for cutting out the bits of science that you don't like

Exactly true. That is how it is for these folks. Things that don't contradict the bible are fine - inert, in Jorgese - but if it comes into conflict with biblical lore, watch out! It is ideologically driven falsehoods!

[Viktor Scott]

The closest Jorge has come to defining "inert" to me is by way of example. He then produces the most banal examples:-

- "2+3=5",
- making faster cars,
- making better toothpaste,
- measuring the hardness of a material,
- making toasters.


Regards, Roland

Are ANY of theser really 'science' in the abstract sense? 3 of them look more like, at best, applied science, and one is math. I remember these examples, it is pretty pathetic. But they reflect perfectly Jorge's actual backround in math and applied science. When all you have is a hammer....

[Gaytheist]

Nobel laureate and ardent evolutionist Steven Weinberg wrote :

“I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I’m all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition.”

And just what does Weinberg mean by "superstition"? Let's see ...

“... this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, that we’ll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make.”

—Steven Weinberg, “Free People from Superstition,” 2000

EDITED TO ADD : http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2000/april2000/weinberg.html


Note that the demise of religion for Weinberg is one if not the most important contribution of science.


Uh ... the message is clear enough, I hope.

Jorge


Yes, I think the message is pretty clear. Mr. Weinberg believes that science can help dispel religious superstition.

1. Dr. Weinberg speaks for...Dr. Weinberg. He's certainly entitled to do so. There is no Board of Directors of Science issuing a statement through Dr. Weinberg. Science itself has no goal outside of the truth.

2. Many specific religious beliefs/superstitions are called into question by scientific progress and discoveries. For example, most Europeans once believed that the world is flat and the sun cycled above it, as stated in the bible. Science disproved this false belief. Many people once believed that thunder and lightning were caused by Thor's anger. Science has discovered its actual cause. Some contemporary Christians believe that God created each species of animal. Science has discovered that in fact the various species evolved from a common ancestor. And so forth. If you want to maintain these beliefs, you must reject scientific progress.

3. I think it is possible to reconcile some religious belief, possibly even a Christian belief, with scientific discoveries. I don't really know or care, because I am not a Christian or any variety of theist. If a Christian wants to accept scientific progress and scientific discoveries, then it is up to them to refine their theology to reconcile their beliefs with modern scientific knowledge.

4. You seem to have a problem with an atheist scientist wanting to advocate for or promulgate his beliefs. Do you? Yet you advocate the right and even duties of Christians to do the same? If I understand you correctly, your position seems hypocritical.

5. If you disagree with Dr. Weinberg, why don't you state how and why, so we can have an intelligent discussion?

[Gaytheist]

Jorge:
Are you opposed to the views of Stephen Weinberg, or to science?

[Jorge]

Jorge:
Are you opposed to the views of Stephen Weinberg, or to science?
Depends on what you mean by "opposed to the views".

Opposed to science? Not in general. BTW, 'science' doesn't have any views - people have views.
Opposed to Weinberg? You'd need to be more specific ... which views?

Jorge

[Gaytheist]

Depends on what you mean by "opposed to the views".

Opposed to science? Not in general. BTW, 'science' doesn't have any views - people have views.I did not assert that science has views. Read my post. I asked whether you were opposed to science, or to Stephen Weinberg's views on science.

Opposed to Weinberg? You'd need to be more specific ... which views?

Jorge Uh, I don't know, maybe the views you were quoting in your OP?

My question is, what is your point? That Stephen Weinberg is mistaken, and science doesn't undermine religious superstition? That there is an evil atheist/naturalist/scientific conspiracy to undermine your religion? That Weinberg is right, and science is an excellent antidote to theist fancy? That science in fact does counteract religion, which is why science should not be practiced? What were you trying to tell us in your OP?