Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in (page 8)

EntirelyPossible

why is that apple setting his head on fire?



	Bohm, I think you get some of what I'm saying (about some people in religion and science being similar in their attitude/treatment of those who do not accept what they accept), but not all of what I'm saying. I used the term 'new light' here because I heard it here on this forum. I never got to that in my study. Perhaps that is why it carries no personal meaning for me. I do completely understand that it would for those who were subjected to the hypocrisy and lies behind it. The similarity I see between science itself, and some religion, is the progressive understanding that can change at any time. What you accept as true now, could be false later, and vice versa. In science, evidence determines this. In religion, understanding (according to learning about the world around us) and/or revelation and/or just plain bs determines this. But the bottom line result is the same in that nothing is 'fact'. Its always changing. So both sides should be able to understand (and at the very least not mock) if someone from the other side chooses not to put stock into their conclusions. Because we're just babes in a universe that is however billions/trillions/eternities of years old. We've barely, barely scratched the surface. Hence my question above, wondering if anyone here can understand why a religious or faithful person would refuse to doubt their faith for a science that might one day back up what they believe? As for religion, there shouldn't be any 'new light' at all, imo. New understanding on a personal level, of course, because as we grow and live and make mistakes, we learn more about things like faith, love, compassion, mercy, etc... and when we have personal knowledge of these things, we might have a better understanding of love, and so a better understanding of a God of love. Which would also shed light on words written in a book a couple/few thousand years ago :) It sound an awfull lot like you are comparing science with religion with respect to new light. Um.. that is what I was saying. Pretty much verbatim. I hope I have ekplained better above, but I might still be unclear. Or perhaps it is unclear just because we disagree? Not sure. But if I see specific eksamples of it around the forum, Bohm, I'll point them out, and then maybe you'll understand more of what it is I am seeing. I think that was all. by all means, if you find some jerk on teh interwebs who speak outside what the evidence warrent, call him out! redicule him! Now actually this is perhaps something I can use. If the evidence clearly speaks against what he is saying, then I might just ignore him (I hope I would not ridicule him, but I laugh at wacky theories too, even though I sometimes wish some of those wacky theorists would be right, just to shove it in all the faces of the people laughing at them) But if he has some evidence, even if it points in other directions more than the direction he is taking... then who knows? Who am I or anyone to call him an idiot? Should he get his papers pubished and his findings taught in school without strong evidence and support to back up his claims? No, I don't think that. Of course, his peers would be right in saying that the evidence doesn't seem to support what he's saying, at this time. But neither should he be dismissed or ridiculed... because He could be right, since our understanding of the world around us is constantly changing due to new evidence and discovery. He might see something no one else sees - yet - and pushes to prove his hypothesis, and he might just succeed. Hope that helps you to see what I'm saying, even if we do not agree. If not, perhaps we will just agree to disagree... for now ;) Peace, Tammy

Bohm, I think you get some of what I'm saying (about some people in religion and science being similar in their attitude/treatment of those who do not accept what they accept), but not all of what I'm saying.

I used the term 'new light' here because I heard it here on this forum. I never got to that in my study. Perhaps that is why it carries no personal meaning for me. I do completely understand that it would for those who were subjected to the hypocrisy and lies behind it.

The similarity I see between science itself, and some religion, is the progressive understanding that can change at any time. What you accept as true now, could be false later, and vice versa. In science, evidence determines this. In religion, understanding (according to learning about the world around us) and/or revelation and/or just plain bs determines this.

But the bottom line result is the same in that nothing is 'fact'. Its always changing.

So both sides should be able to understand (and at the very least not mock) if someone from the other side chooses not to put stock into their conclusions. Because we're just babes in a universe that is however billions/trillions/eternities of years old. We've barely, barely scratched the surface.

Hence my question above, wondering if anyone here can understand why a religious or faithful person would refuse to doubt their faith for a science that might one day back up what they believe?

As for religion, there shouldn't be any 'new light' at all, imo. New understanding on a personal level, of course, because as we grow and live and make mistakes, we learn more about things like faith, love, compassion, mercy, etc... and when we have personal knowledge of these things, we might have a better understanding of love, and so a better understanding of a God of love. Which would also shed light on words written in a book a couple/few thousand years ago :)

It sound an awfull lot like you are comparing science with religion with respect to new light.

Um.. that is what I was saying. Pretty much verbatim. I hope I have ekplained better above, but I might still be unclear. Or perhaps it is unclear just because we disagree? Not sure. But if I see specific eksamples of it around the forum, Bohm, I'll point them out, and then maybe you'll understand more of what it is I am seeing.
I think that was all. by all means, if you find some jerk on teh interwebs who speak outside what the evidence warrent, call him out! redicule him!
Now actually this is perhaps something I can use. If the evidence clearly speaks against what he is saying, then I might just ignore him (I hope I would not ridicule him, but I laugh at wacky theories too, even though I sometimes wish some of those wacky theorists would be right, just to shove it in all the faces of the people laughing at them)
But if he has some evidence, even if it points in other directions more than the direction he is taking... then who knows? Who am I or anyone to call him an idiot? Should he get his papers pubished and his findings taught in school without strong evidence and support to back up his claims? No, I don't think that. Of course, his peers would be right in saying that the evidence doesn't seem to support what he's saying, at this time. But neither should he be dismissed or ridiculed... because He could be right, since our understanding of the world around us is constantly changing due to new evidence and discovery. He might see something no one else sees - yet - and pushes to prove his hypothesis, and he might just succeed.

Hope that helps you to see what I'm saying, even if we do not agree. If not, perhaps we will just agree to disagree... for now ;)

Peace,

Tammy

tec

I have no idea what happened with the formatting, sorry.

EntirelyPossible

I think we settled it. Science is not the same as religion except where people are involved and act like people, which is EXACTLY what the rigors of science are there to weed out.

PSacramento

A Q&A about said show over on William L Craig's site:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

EntirelyPossible

Just read some of the Q&A you liked it. It started off with a fundamental misunderstanding of science, castigates the show for not talking about a hypothesis for which there is no evidence (why the heck would they?) and then proceeds to callHawking ignorant for not understanding the made up non-biblical idea of god existing outside of the flow of time. Then he falls back on the tired on argument of scientism, the idea that science is the answer to everything and that's what the show was promoting and saying science can't answer aesthetical questions about beauty (and there the author of the response got WAAAAY out of his depth). To get there he used an idea no one is promoting as far as I can tell and then uses a logically flawed example to create a really just horrible analogy.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against loving Jesus or having faith or think that science is the end all be all, that was just a shitty critique from an ill informed idiot.

PSacramento

EP,

I psoted that, not because I "liked it" but I found it cool that this discussion was happening elsewhere too and wanted others to see other perspectives too.

That said, I have heard WLC called many things but "ill informed idiot" is a first !

EntirelyPossible

I psoted that, not because I "liked it" but I found it cool that this discussion was happening elsewhere too and wanted others to see other perspectives too.

Ah, gotcha! It is interesting to see it, the last thing I wanted to do was put words in your mouth. I repsect you and your faith even though I don't agree with it.

That said, I have heard WLC called many things but "ill informed idiot" is a first !

I don't know much about WLC, i was referring to the person named John that wrote that review. I did try to read a few of the papers WLC wrote but you have to be a member to see them. I would sign up, but I am don't want to get fundamentalism on my inbox ;)

You know me, I so rarely say what I am really thinking :)

PSacramento

I don't know much about WLC, i was referring to the person named John that wrote that review. I did try to read a few of the papers WLC wrote but you have to be a member to see them. I would sign up, but I am don't want to get fundamentalism on my inbox ;)

Ah, I misunderstood who you were eferring to, thanks for clearing that up.

I signed up because he has soem seriously scholary essays there, many are a bit over my head though.

I haven't received any "fundi stuff" yet, LOL !

You know me, I so rarely say what I am really thinking :)

You? outspoken ?

That's just crazy talk !

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

Share this