15 Sep 05
Originally posted by vistesdyou cannot apply science to matters of faith; this is why saying "but religion is not scientific, therefore false" is always going to be easiest to do.
[b]I contend that these ad hoc theories without an ounce of scientific evidence are on the same boat as a theist saying that God created it. Creation might be non-scientific, in the sense that we can't apply the scientific method to it, but it is just as plausible.
[/b]But doesn’t scientific theory have some basic “defeasibility” principles built in ...[text shortened]... tion—I’ll probably have to check out your response later, ‘cause I have to run shortly. Thanks.[/b]
That's like saying, "This juice from these oranges does not taste like apples, therefore these oranges do not exist."
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdBut doesn’t scientific theory have some basic “defeasibility” principles built in (verificationist, falsificationist)?
[b]I contend that these ad hoc theories without an ounce of scientific evidence are on the same boat as a theist saying that God created it. Creation might be non-scientific, in the sense that we can't apply the scientific method to it, but it is just as plausible.
[/b]But doesn’t scientific theory have some basic “defeasibility” principles built in ...[text shortened]... tion—I’ll probably have to check out your response later, ‘cause I have to run shortly. Thanks.[/b]
It should have. Otherwise I could postulate a theory that says that mature watermelons are purple on the inside until you pierce the skin and people would have to accept it because it can't be proven wrong.
A scientific theory can always, in principle, be defeated by empirical evidence.
In principle, yes.
What kind of “defeaters” apply to religious faith?
I guess:
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.
Fruits, in the Scripture and Jewish phraseology, are taken for works of any kind. “A man’s works,” says one, “are the tongue of his heart, and tell honestly whether he is inwardly corrupt or pure.” The judgment formed of a man by his general conduct is a safe one: if the judgment be not favorable to the person, that is his fault, as you have your opinion of him from his works, i.e. the confession of his own heart.
I don’t mean to hijack your scientific discussion with frogstomp
No worries.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by MorrenFaith in its essence is a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
you cannot apply science to matters of faith; this is why saying "but religion is not scientific, therefore false" is always going to be easiest to do.
That's like saying, "This juice from these oranges does not taste like apples, therefore these oranges do not exist."
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by MorrenAgreed, though the problem goes the other way as well: "Scientific theory does not conform to the Bible, so it must be false."
you cannot apply science to matters of faith; this is why saying "but religion is not scientific, therefore false" is always going to be easiest to do.
That's like saying, "This juice from these oranges does not taste like apples, therefore these oranges do not exist."
If you don't cling to a "literalistic" reading of the Bible (which you don't), and if your faith is broad enough (which yours is, obviously, since you passed the "relatively sane" test 😉), then there is no problem--no "God of the gaps" and stuff like that.
Really got to run now....😛
EDIT: Just saw your post too halitose. Thanks but, got to 😛😛😛
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by vistesdI'd contend that rather than science not conforming to the Bible, it confirms it.
Agreed, though the problem goes the other way as well: "Scientific theory does not conform to the Bible, so it must be false."
If you don't cling to a "literalistic" reading of the Bible (which you don't), and if your faith is broad enough (which yours is, obviously, since you passed the "relatively sane" test 😉), then there is no problem--no "God of the gaps" and stuff like that.
Really got to run now....😛
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by MorrenWhat about a higher power planting the seeds of evolution within the creation of our universe?
What about a higher power planting the seeds of evolution within the creation of our universe?
The higher power, then, "created" science as we are able to see it. (3 spatial dimensions.
"less than the width of a proton away from ours"
away from ours -- not "in size". 😉
To believe this you have to accept the possibility of a higher power.
Who/what would this higher power be?
away from ours -- not "in size". 😉
Gotcha. 🙂
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI don't know. And that's okay.
[b]What about a higher power planting the seeds of evolution within the creation of our universe?
To believe this you have to accept the possibility of a higher power.
Who/what would this higher power be?
away from ours -- not "in size". 😉
Gotcha. 🙂[/b]
Go read flatland and get back to me. 😉
//should finish it, himself. 😛
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by MorrenWhoa there! If a person can choose God after death, what's the point in choosing now and taking the fun out of life?
Yeah, that's what I meant. Being that I believe everyone to be created by God (via *gasp* evolution! 😛), and free to make the choices they desire to make.
When you die, I believe you are presented with the choice.
The same choice you have your entire life.
Much like Pascal's Wager.
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, btw.
16 Sep 05
Originally posted by vistesdApostolic Tradition (or simply Tradition) is also the basis for much (all?) Catholic dogma.
Also, there is the “Apostolic” tradition, which is even stronger in the Greek Orthodox churches: Paul taught his successor, who taught his, who taught…etc. Orthodox theologians seemed to be always saying “…as was taught by the Fathers” when they made their arguments. The notion of this “oral tradition,” which eventually became part of church writings, wa ...[text shortened]... ey made overtures, basically saying, “Hey, we don’t need you either; we know what we’re doing.”
16 Sep 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI never said it _was_ the teaching -- just theologicaly acceptable _by_ the Church.
Whoa there! If a person can choose God after death, what's the point in choosing now and taking the fun out of life?
This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, btw.
Everywhere I read, especially within the Catechism, you can come across situations where you are given more and more reason behind the idea that you are given the _choice_ of living like Christ, accepting God, et atl...
16 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by MorrenI never said it _was_ the teaching -- just theologicaly acceptable _by_ the Church
I never said it _was_ the teaching -- just theologicaly acceptable _by_ the Church.
Everywhere I read, especially within the Catechism, you can come across situations where you are given more and more reason behind the idea that you are given the _choice_ of living like Christ, accepting God, et atl...
No, it is not. Plain and simple.
Let's just make sure - you are saying that a person has the right to repent for his/her sins and accept God after death and still enter Heaven, right?
Everywhere I read, especially within the Catechism, you can come across situations where you are given more and more reason behind the idea that you are given the _choice_ of living like Christ, accepting God, et atl...
Please cite one of them that deals with the afterlife.