Creationism Undermined by Its Own Paradigms etc... (60)

Surely that is the whole point of religious belief, the fact that if there were proof it would not be belie?, Therefor belief is dependent on ignorance.

International man of mystery
Men are from Mars, women are from Hell

Exactly. The Bible has all the answers. And if you look elsewhere, that's a paddlin'.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

I object to this.

I welcome the advances of science. All of us should be grateful for those who dedicate themselves to it.

Scientism is NOT the same as science. I comment on scientism, NOT science.

In other words (and as I have stated many times before, though you choose to misrepresent my position), I recognise that some - indeed many - scientists provide huge benefits to mankind.

The bias here is that some posters present that ALL believers are at best stupid, at worst liars. That is neither accurate, nor scientifically objective.

My point is valid. Some followers of science take things much further, BEYOND the facts, and make science an article of faith. That is scientism (NB again, for those who wilfully twist my words, that is NOT the same thing as pure science).

Moreover, what I say in this regard is true. Over the centuries, followers of scientism have gone blue in the face, arguing from their FAITH position, that X is true, irrevocably and undeniably, because, in their view, "science" says so. As Doghouse pointed out, nearly everything that this position covers has been shown to be false.

Similarly, a significant proportion of what science "now" believes (note the word) is not demonstrably true, but relies on a faith position. And such things contradict what was previously "believed" to be true) (though that did not stop followers of scientism stating it as fact).

The TRULY scientific position is that certain ideas are currently thought of as likely to be accurate. Many go beyond that, of course. It IS a fact that my heart pumps blood round my body. But many things fall outside that degree of certainty.

To be scientific then, should involve acknowledging the provisional status of much that is thought today. Recognising that scientism has been dramatically wrong in the past should make for a much more humble approach in the present. Today's "truths" may be shown to be false tomorrow.

And if you feel the need to get vehement about the accuracy of those statements, you are being neither objective, nor scientific.

Oh, and proccie: please state precisely where my suggestion that Doghouse should consider learning from the mistakes of science's past (which he himself noted) is "batshit crazy" or "twaddle". And if you CAN'T do that (which you clearly can't from my very limited comment), explain to me how you justify, scientifically, rationally, and objectively, distorting the FACTS like that, and how that squares with your avowedly dispassionate, considered and scientific approach to any "evidence"

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Edited 7 Jul 11, 11:37 PM by AnEnglishMaster

Yep. Point proved I think.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!

Well you say that, Mr. English Master (do you teach other languages too? I wonder.). However, the man is right. Christianity has been driven forward by the Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church has always been pro-ignorance. That was the main way in which they maintained their authority and their control of the masses.

Let us not forget that the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant, on pain of torture and death, when he said the earth went around the sun. Let us not forget that the Roman Catholic Church even burnt their own scholers and bible translators to death, because they did not want the masses seeing what was written in the bible. They were not willing to tolerate that threat to their own authority, an authority which rested solely on power and fear.

So I am sorry Mr. English Master. Doghouse Reilly is right. Christianity has always held a pro-ignorance position.

You might be aware of some fringe group of Christians who were not part of the Roman Catholic Church, who have never been part of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of Christianity however, has come down to us via that execrable institution. I should know. I had a Roman Catholic education. I use the word "education" very, very losely in this context!

I am the Super Slut, Slut of Sluts. Look on my works, ye merely "a little bit naughty" and despair!

Edited 8 Jul 11, 7:31 AM by Super_Slut_321

"Did God or evolution drive the emergence of life in all its resplendent variety?"

I believe in God, so I would suggest, as my own answer to the question:

God drove evolution and evolution drove the emergence of life in all of its resplendent variety.

Also, when I say evolution, I do not refer only to biology and Darwin's Survival of the Fittest. I refer to the very physics at the heart of the engine of the universe. To my mind the idea that, following the Big Bang, there were only hydrogen atoms in the universe, that the elements we are made of were formed in the life and death processes of giant stars, is so remarkable I cannot conceive of it happening without the intervention of some God, some Ghost in the Machine, driving evolution from a universe of hydrogen atoms to the truly wonderful, God like creature, who is sitting right here, right now, typing and editing this post.

As to exactly what this God might be. As to whether he, she or it has any anthropomorphic qualities, I would not like to say. I think it exists. I think it can be trusted. I think it can be relied on.

If that is not the case. If we are truly alone in this great, vast universe, then all I can say is:

Boy are we fucked!

I am the Super Slut, Slut of Sluts. Look on my works, ye merely "a little bit naughty" and despair!

Edited 8 Jul 11, 7:36 AM by Super_Slut_321

Activating smug mode.

Surprised it needed activating.....

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

Instead of posturing, please feel free to address the points I made.

In particular, on what basis my post agreeing with Doghouse, and inviting him to take a more scientific view (ie, a less dogmatic one, on the basis of how such dogmatism in the past has done scientism so little credit) equates on the internal EVIDENCE of my statement, with "twaddle".

I have no interest in "taking the moral high ground", and do NOT set out to do so. Truly.

I DO aim to point out any inconsistencies I believe I find in any comment on here.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

And kiddy fiddling priests.

And the troubles in Ireland.

Zen S&M: The sound of one hand slapping.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!