219d
@KellyJay
So what will you think if and when Putin pulls the nuke trigger and WW3 actually starts, no more NYC, Chicago, LA, London, Moscow, Bejiing, Berlin, all a nuclear wasteland and hundreds of thousands of species are gone, you think your god will stop such wars?
I guess you would assume all the dead people were sinners and deserved to go to hell where they belong.
@sonhouse saidI assume every single person is a sinner, I am not dividing those who are good and those who are bad. I believe what Clay Jones said, that the only thing that is going to stop any of us from seeing every person we know and love die, is if we die before them because we are all going to die. You think that is somehow because there are good people and bad, not so what happens to us is common to all men.
@KellyJay
So what will you think if and when Putin pulls the nuke trigger and WW3 actually starts, no more NYC, Chicago, LA, London, Moscow, Bejiing, Berlin, all a nuclear wasteland and hundreds of thousands of species are gone, you think your god will stop such wars?
I guess you would assume all the dead people were sinners and deserved to go to hell where they belong.
219d
@KellyJay
But you would only mourn the deaths of humans in war, without a thought for the eco system of animals making up the diversity of life that keeps us going as well.
I think it is the height of arrogance for humans to think they actually are the crown of creation.
The way we are abusing the planet is proof enough we are way down the totem pole of morality in the life kingdom and may not even be worth saving.
219d
@sonhouse saidI mourn every death in my life and those I don't know are a loss to us. Life is where meaning is found, it is where worth is, these are not things the material world can give us. We should be taking care of the planet, this is where we live, spoiling that place is about as dumb as it gets, we need to be good stewards of all we have.
@KellyJay
But you would only mourn the deaths of humans in war, without a thought for the eco system of animals making up the diversity of life that keeps us going as well.
I think it is the height of arrogance for humans to think they actually are the crown of creation.
The way we are abusing the planet is proof enough we are way down the totem pole of morality in the life kingdom and may not even be worth saving.
Concerning the height of arrogance it would be so if we were to place ourselves in that spot as if we were so special it was ours by divine right, but that isn't the case. Where we are placed isn't due to us at all but another, Jesus Christ the Word of God, the living Logos who became one us to become all that corrupts us our sin, shame, iniquity, and guilt at all levels so we could be redeemed. There is nothing about ourselves that we can be proud over, we didn't earn that, we didn't compel God to move on our behalf, and we could bring nothing to the table to move God to move towards us. He did it because He is love and He loves us, that has all to do with God not us.
@KellyJay saidSo please define "Science" then.
Has scientism corrupted science?
As defined as
Scientism is the belief that science is the only source of knowledge about the world and that it can explain all aspects of reality.
If you go with Wikipedia (Sources there):
Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
The question could be: Can all relevant infromation be measured? The answer is a strict no. And scientist do know and won't venture into that area, save for trying to measure and to understand.
Edit: You posted the same titel in 2Spirituality" wher it might belong...
219d
@Ponderable saidIt is posted in two science and spirituality, science because I wanted to talk about the fact the question that truth can only be known through science. I didn't bring God into this discussion someone else did.
So please define "Science" then.
If you go with Wikipedia (Sources there):Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.
The question could be: Can all relevant infromation be measured? The answer is a strict no. And scientist do know and won't ventu ...[text shortened]... sure and to understand.
Edit: You posted the same titel in 2Spirituality" wher it might belong...
219d
@KellyJay
Science is not concerned with "truth" at all. It is interested in predicatbility, the proof is in the pudding then. If I can predict correctly that is as near to the truth as not to be discernible. But we are very awayre of the limitations of measurability.
Now if we count sociology as "science" we have a problem with concrete predictability as oppoed to physics.
219d
@Ponderable saidWell if has nothing to do with truth why believe in it? Even errors can be predicable given the circumstances that are repeated that doesn’t mean that they should be believed in?
@KellyJay
Science is not concerned with "truth" at all. It is interested in predicatbility, the proof is in the pudding then. If I can predict correctly that is as near to the truth as not to be discernible. But we are very awayre of the limitations of measurability.
Now if we count sociology as "science" we have a problem with concrete predictability as oppoed to physics.
219d
@KellyJay saidIf I prdict repeatedly a correct a maesuring value then I don't predict errors. However I should vary location, experimenter and measuring devices to be sure that there is no systematic error. So the law of gravity has been shown to yield correct resulty over over and over again. We can savely say it is true. (At least in our time and place (and that place is large, given that correct results are obrtained on solar sytsmes several lightyears from ours.
Well if has nothing to do with truth why believe in it? Even errors can be predicable given the circumstances that are repeated that doesn’t mean that they should be believed in?
219d
@Ponderable saidTruth has to be apart of the process or the whole endeavor is meaningless, every piece of your test has to be done with exactitude and recorded accurately or what is the point? If we are looking at results for our understanding than errors allowed in makes the whole experiment meaningless. If we add offsets to make our predictions accurate that doesn’t belong we may get predictable results that we want, it will just be a lie.
If I prdict repeatedly a correct a maesuring value then I don't predict errors. However I should vary location, experimenter and measuring devices to be sure that there is no systematic error. So the law of gravity has been shown to yield correct resulty over over and over again. We can savely say it is true. (At least in our time and place (and that place is large, given that correct results are obrtained on solar sytsmes several lightyears from ours.
219d
@KellyJay said"truth" is a philosophical concept. We like to talk about reality. And yes ideally we obtain the same results using different methods.
Truth has to be apart of the process or the whole endeavor is meaningless, every piece of your test has to be done with exactitude and recorded accurately or what is the point? If we are looking at results for our understanding than errors allowed in makes the whole experiment meaningless. If we add offsets to make our predictions accurate that doesn’t belong we may get predictable results that we want, it will just be a lie.
219d
@Ponderable saidTruth is what reflects reality which can run counter to our foundational assumptions making all our calculations based on faulty data. Which is why questioning science is always how science is done, if we turn any pet theory into a fact we are not staying true to science. Dogma is a dangerous thing, it is everywhere it is proclaimed, if untrue it can be quite horrific and scientism can be very dogmatic. Science should be questionable even if we don’t like a theory or we do.
"truth" is a philosophical concept. We like to talk about reality. And yes ideally we obtain the same results using different methods.
219d
@KellyJay saidYes reality is only fix as long as we don't know better. So what exactly is your point?
Truth is what reflects reality which can run counter to our foundational assumptions making all our calculations based on faulty data. Which is why questioning science is always how science is done, if we turn any pet theory into a fact we are not staying true to science. Dogma is a dangerous thing, it is everywhere it is proclaimed, if untrue it can be quite horrific and ...[text shortened]... ntism can be very dogmatic. Science should be questionable even if we don’t like a theory or we do.
219d
@Ponderable saidYou have no reason to believe science can be done were it not for philosophical reasons.
"truth" is a philosophical concept. We like to talk about reality. And yes ideally we obtain the same results using different methods.
219d
@Ponderable saidWe are concerned with truth even more so than repeatedly getting the same results.
Yes reality is only fix as long as we don't know better. So what exactly is your point?