Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

What is "anti-science"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
    Sorry, but you don't get the privilege of redefining the English language for your own agenda. The root idea of the word "faith" is simply "trust" or "confidence". The word "faith", without other qualifying language, gives no implication for the basis of this trust or confidence. The basis can be scientific or not, objective or not, evidence-based or not. The word "faith", on its own, provides no implication one way or the other.
    Like wise you do not get the privilege of redefining the English language to suite your Theist agenda. There are separate definitions for a reason. Lumping to suite your agenda is not meaningful. The definition for Theist beliefs is specific and separate as cited and highlighted;

    Here is the Oxford Dictionary entry:
    Source: Oxford Dictionaries

    faith
    NOUN

    1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
    'this restores one's faith in politicians’

    2 Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
    ‘bereaved people who have shown supreme faith’

    _2.1 A particular religion.
    ‘the Christian faith’

    _2.2 A strongly held belief.
    ‘men with strong political faiths’
    © Copyright Original Source


    I consider the red herring of lumping all the definitions of faith into one meaningless shmooze is a classic anti-science.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-26-2017, 10:14 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      You must be the smartest man in the world, Shuny! You have verified all of physics, astronomy, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, psychiatry, medicine. Everything! A Jack of all Trades you are. Astounding.
      Your misquoting me as usual parroting your red herrings. I clearly and specifically referred to millions of scientists over the millennia that have confirmed Methodological Naturalism and the consistent predictable science, not available by the faith of Theism, which has absolutely no consistent reliable way to objectively proof nor falsify their beliefs by definition as referenced.

      I consider the canard conflating the faith in Theism to the 'faith' supported by objective verifiable evidence by science as defined and referenced, is a classic red herring, and anti-science.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        You must be the smartest man in the world, Shuny! You have verified all of physics, astronomy, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, ecology, meteorology, biology, zoology, botany, psychiatry, medicine. Everything! A Jack of all Trades you are. Astounding.
        “Faith’ is commonly defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing”. You don’t have to have personally verified every bit of scientific knowledge to accept it as reliable. It is enough to trust the methodology of the qualified people that have done so. OTOH theology is not supported by any verifiable evidence of any kind. It is merely "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” - Hebrews.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          “Faith’ is commonly defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing”. You don’t have to have personally verified every bit of scientific knowledge to accept it as reliable. It is enough to trust the methodology of the qualified people that have done so.
          In this case, you aren't actually trusting in the data, but in the scientists. You are trusting in people. You trust that they are honest and accurate, while you know full well that not all scientists are honest, and that each and every scientist is sometimes wrong.

          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          OTOH theology is not supported by any verifiable evidence of any kind. It is merely "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” - Hebrews.
          Wrong.
          Source: Acts 17:2-3, NASB


          2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead

          © Copyright Original Source

          "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
            In this case, you aren't actually trusting in the data, but in the scientists. You are trusting in people. You trust that they are honest and accurate, while you know full well that not all scientists are honest, and that each and every scientist is sometimes wrong.
            Yes, in the same way I trust the manufacturers of my car, that they’ve made a safe product, or my lecturers at school and university, that they provided accurate information.

            Wrong.
            Source: Acts 17:2-3, NASB


            2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead

            © Copyright Original Source

            Your point?
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
              What evidence do you have that the laws of physics are not universal? Please, let me in on it.
              I don't need to show that, I just need to show that it is inductive reasoning on your part, which it is. But I will remind you that if we did live in a multi-verse there most likely would be very different laws of physics governing other areas.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                “Faith’ is commonly defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing”. You don’t have to have personally verified every bit of scientific knowledge to accept it as reliable. It is enough to trust the methodology of the qualified people that have done so. OTOH theology is not supported by any verifiable evidence of any kind. It is merely "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” - Hebrews.


                You are confusing having faith for what is known as "blind faith" or blind acceptance. They are not synonyms.

                An actual definition for the type of faith we talk about can be found in an old edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary
                FAITH: 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar.

                The "blind faith" concept that atheists always assume that we mean is actually not biblical. Pistis, the Greek word translated as "faith," actually is defined as a conviction based on the facts. "Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6) We couldn't please God unless our minds can accurately discern the facts.

                Our faith is based upon the evidence provided. Paul praised the people of Berea in northern Greece because they "received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). For looking at the evidence and seeing for themselves that it was true -- not accepting it blindly.

                Paul even explicitly told us that we should check to see if something is true or not which is the exact opposite of blind faith.

                Scripture Verse: 1 Thessalonians 5:21


                but test everything; hold fast what is good.

                © Copyright Original Source



                Likewise John gives very similar advice - to test things to see if they are true or not and not to blindly accept what you're told

                Scripture Verse: 1 John 4:1


                Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

                © Copyright Original Source



                In fact Proverbs 14:15 demonstrates that the Bible argues directly against blind faith when it informs us that "The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps."

                Christ offered evidence that He had Risen and didn't demand blind acceptance:

                Scripture Verse: Luke 24:38-39

                And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”

                © Copyright Original Source



                And as Paul explains, the material body of the resurrected Son of God is what Christianity hinges on. If Christ has not really raised from the dead, then faith is in vain.

                Scripture Verse: I Cor. 15:13-14

                But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.

                © Copyright Original Source



                And as Peter puts it

                Scripture Verse: II Peter 1:16

                For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

                © Copyright Original Source



                This is what we Christians mean by having faith. A faith that is rooted in reality and truth, and not blind faith.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                  In this case, you aren't actually trusting in the data, but in the scientists. You are trusting in people. You trust that they are honest and accurate, while you know full well that not all scientists are honest, and that each and every scientist is sometimes wrong.
                  Right. I don't trust scientists. I trust the process.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    How about Feynman's address called "Cargo Cult Science":
                    That's exactly what i don't want. You're relying on the words of one individual, rather than the actual practice of the entire community of scientists and the concrete examples that have been provided for you. You're turning this discussion into a cult of Feynman.

                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    What I said was that the particular flat earthers that I know don't reject the scientific method. They are not anti science. A person can be super skeptical of the claims of others and be interested in experimental testing.
                    If you are uninterested in the experimental testing done by scientists, then yes, you are anti-science.

                    You have yet to explain how rejecting thousands of well supported experiments is anything but anti-science. You keep trying to shift the discussion back to whether empirical testing is a good thing or not. That's not the issue. The issue is the rejection of well established results, and you have not addressed that in the slightest.

                    Originally posted by Joel View Post
                    And what I said was that a controversy is one of the best ways that I learn and deepen my understanding. How many others are like me may be an open question. The relevant point is that that process of learning isn't anti-science.
                    You were explicitly suggesting it be used in education. Again, you're trying to shift the discussion away from what you actually said.
                    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Yes, in the same way I trust the manufacturers of my car, that they’ve made a safe product, or my lecturers at school and university, that they provided accurate information.
                      And in much the same way, a Christian trusts the God who made him, the Scriptures which come from God, and the commentators and exegetes who explain the Scriptures.

                      The "faith" or "trust" that is exercised in all of these cases is much the same.

                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Your point?
                      My point is that the Christian message is based on evidence, logic, and reason. It is not the "blind faith" that you seem to think it is.
                      "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post

                        An actual definition for the type of faith we talk about can be found in an old edition of Noah Webster's Dictionary
                        FAITH: 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Caesar.

                        The "blind faith" concept that atheists always assume that we mean is actually not biblical. Pistis, the Greek word translated as "faith," actually is defined as a conviction based on the facts. "Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6) We couldn't please God unless our minds can accurately discern the facts.
                        And since we are talking about "faith" in a theological context, it is worth looking at the definition from a theological dictionary:
                        Source: IVP Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms


                        faith. A biblical word that refers both to intellectual belief and to relational trust or commitment. The biblical authors generally do not make a distinction between faith as belief and faith as trust, but tend to see true faith as consisting of both what is believed (e.g., that God exists, that Jesus is Lord) and the personal commitment to a person who is trustworthy, reliable and able to save (that is, trust in the person of Christ as the way to salvation). See also assensus; fiducia; notitia.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                          And in much the same way, a Christian trusts the God who made him, the Scriptures which come from God, and the commentators and exegetes who explain the Scriptures.

                          The "faith" or "trust" that is exercised in all of these cases is much the same.


                          My point is that the Christian message is based on evidence, logic, and reason. It is not the "blind faith" that you seem to think it is.
                          It is not based on objective verifiable evidence and the falsification of theories and hypothesis, as science is. They represent two radically different types of 'faith and trust.'

                          I have 'faith and trust' in the Baha'i Faith and the writings, but I fully realize this is most definitely different than the 'faith and trust' I have in science. I do not believe my religious beliefs are based on 'blind faith,' but the reasoning and logic of my choice of 'faith' is not the same as with science.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-27-2017, 05:06 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            And in much the same way, a Christian trusts the God who made him, the Scriptures which come from God, and the commentators and exegetes who explain the Scriptures.

                            The "faith" or "trust" that is exercised in all of these cases is much the same.
                            False equivalence! There’s no comparison. The Christian depends upon the reliability of scriptural authority and Christianity's own traditions none of which can be verified. OTOH my examples are potentially open to investigation and scientific testing.

                            My point is that the Christian message is based on evidence, logic, and reason. It is not the "blind faith" that you seem to think it is.
                            Only insofar as you accept the premise! See above.

                            Originally posted by Kbertsche View Post
                            And since we are talking about "faith" in a theological context, it is worth looking at the definition from a theological dictionary:
                            Source: IVP Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms


                            faith. A biblical word that refers both to intellectual belief and to relational trust or commitment. The biblical authors generally do not make a distinction between faith as belief and faith as trust, but tend to see true faith as consisting of both what is believed (e.g., that God exists, that Jesus is Lord) and the personal commitment to a person who is trustworthy, reliable and able to save (that is, trust in the person of Christ as the way to salvation). See also assensus; fiducia; notitia.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            The “faith” to which you and Rogue refer is specifically limited to a theological context. In the broader sense it is not so limited.

                            From the Oxford Dictionary: "Faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. ‘This restores one's faith in politicians’"

                            https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post

                              From the Oxford Dictionary: "Faith: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. ‘This restores one's faith in politicians’"

                              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith
                              Many churches have historically taught that "blind faith" (believing without evidence) is required ... That those teachings are completely at odds with the Biblical declarations - that believing (πιστευων - pisteuon) is based on palpable evidence (deemed undeniable by the believer, admittedly). Then too, in the Old Testament (Septuagint), πιστις - pistis only translates the Hebrew word for "loyalty/trustworthiness" - So, what does the FIRST of the English definitions of "faith" have to do with the translated definition of "pistis/pistin/pistos"?
                              1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                              .
                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                              Scripture before Tradition:
                              but that won't prevent others from
                              taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                              of the right to call yourself Christian.

                              ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                                Many churches have historically taught that "blind faith" (believing without evidence) is required ... That those teachings are completely at odds with the Biblical declarations - that believing (πιστευων - pisteuon) is based on palpable evidence (deemed undeniable by the believer, admittedly). Then too, in the Old Testament (Septuagint), πιστις - pistis only translates the Hebrew word for "loyalty/trustworthiness" - So, what does the FIRST of the English definitions of "faith" have to do with the translated definition of "pistis/pistin/pistos"?
                                Exactly!
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X