evidence...

[greenberg]

Mod note: trolling posts by Roman and LG deleted.

And I missed those posts! Dang! :bawl:

 

[spidergoat]

Would you say that theist scientist's work, where it indicates a support to theism, is pishposhed away while Non-theists work which points to something similar is suggested to be incomplete? I hate to bring up rumors, but they do exist, that if a scientist "bucks the trend" of Atheistic thought, they sacrifice their careers. Hard to be objective and truthful in an environment like that, wouldn't you say?

That is nonsense. I know scientists and some of them are religious. I think the details of the evidence matters the most, not the personal feelings of the researchers. Maybe scientific "evidence" of theism is simply flawed. The most common mistake is that they rely of personal anecdote.

 

[(Q)]

That is nonsense. I know scientists and some of them are religious. I think the details of the evidence matters the most, not the personal feelings of the researchers. Maybe scientific "evidence" of theism is simply flawed. The most common mistake is that they rely of personal anecdote.

I always find that interesting. Have you ever asked those folks their opinions on how they reconcile the whole concept of the scientific method, observation and evidence, etc., with their religious beliefs?

 

[spidergoat]

They are materials scientists, so the question doesn't really come up too often.

 

[lightgigantic]

I really think theology is an artifical field of study. It's very counter-productive and does nothing to advance humans because it's based the study of a fixed system of beliefs.

The problem is not so much that a system is "fixed". I mean I am quite satisfied that empiricism is fixed within the jurisdiction of what is tenable to the senses. The problem arises when one system makes a claim outside to that which it is fixed.

For instance, calling upon a veterinarian to repair one's car or determining the time of day with a thermometer are clearly absurd. In the same way, advocating that everything knowable in the universe is materially reducible clearly stands outside the parameters of empiricism. Similarly, calling upon scripture to help one re-format one's hard drive will probably not be too productive ....

 

[lightgigantic]

I apologize for the ambiguity. I was actually referring to the post by LG which Ham was asking for clarification on. I wasn't criticizing his request for a paraphrasing but, rather, the unnecessary jargon favored by post-modernists and used, in this instance, by LG.

On a side note, post modernism is quite reconcilable with science (entropy, evolution, organism, indeterminacy, probability, relativity, complementarity, interpretation, chaos, complexity, and self-organization).

And as a further point, when post modernism is tallied with theism you arrive at moral relativism.

 

[Ophiolite]

Similarly, calling upon scripture to help one re-format one's hard drive will probably not be too productive ....

Why isn't this sort of information more widely publicised. It would save a lot of us a lot of time.

 

[swarm]

Perhaps. But then the strong beliefs in "love" also cause blinds spots ....as evidenced by the 50% divorce rates in the USA.

Or humans just aren't life pair bonding animals for the majority of attempts to find a mate (given that even in the successful marriages, rarely is it the first person they ever mate with that they end up staying mated to).

Do you believe in "love"? "Compassion"? "Empathy"? Do you believe in any of the human emotions? And if so, on what scientific evidence do you base those beliefs?

There is no reason to "believe" in any of these. I can examine specific claims by a particular person and see if the behavioral evidence and other physiological markers bear out the claim. Love in particular has very characteristic behavioral, hormonal, and neural transmitter patterns.

You see the difference between these and "god" is there is no god to examine but there are plenty of people to examine.

 

[swarm]

"Nothing can be proven to anyone without their willingness to accept it."

Willingness is irrelevant to actual physical realities impacting on the unwilling.

 

[Baron Max]

There is no reason to "believe" in any of these. I can examine specific claims by a particular person and see if the behavioral evidence and other physiological markers bear out the claim. Love in particular has very characteristic behavioral, hormonal, and neural transmitter patterns.

Wouldn't a religious person, in "love" with god, exhibit exactly those characteristic behavioral, hormonal and neural transmitter patterns?

You see the difference between these and "god" is there is no god to examine but there are plenty of people to examine.

Huh? Are you saying that you have to examine both to note the exhibiting characteristic behavioral, hormonal and neural transmitter patterns? Like, in the "love" situation above, you'd have to examine both parties in order to find out if ONE of them exhibited "love" characteristics?

So, ...no, I don't see the difference. Belief in god and belief in "love" seems to be equaully inexplicable and unprovable. So do you belief in "love"?

Baron Max

 

[lightgigantic]

"Nothing can be proven to anyone without their willingness to accept it."

Willingness is irrelevant to actual physical realities impacting on the unwilling.

prove it

 

[swarm]

NP. Pick up something heavy and drop it on your foot. Repeat until you can recognize a physical reality impacting on your foot.

 

[swarm]

Wouldn't a religious person, in "love" with god, exhibit exactly those characteristic behavioral, hormonal and neural transmitter patterns?

Hook god up, observe and measure him and get back to me with the data and we'll know. What? No god? Well there you are.

A religious person in love with his idea of god certainly could and has, been shown as such by his/her actions, just as the Ted Haggards of the world show by their actions that the couldn't care less about god.

It really isn't hard to figure out if you aren't blinded by blind faith. They even know a bit more about what areas of the brain are effected. For example micro seizures of the temperal lobes seem to be involved in certain ecstatic religious experiences.

Huh? Are you saying that you have to examine both to note the exhibiting characteristic behavioral, hormonal and neural transmitter patterns?

To know about a relationship you must examine all parties. Is that really so astounding?

So, ...no, I don't see the difference.

Actually you do.

Belief in god and belief in "love" seems to be equaully inexplicable and unprovable.

Only if you close your eyes and shout LALALALALALALALICAN'THEARYOULALALALAL

So do you belief in "love"?

Only a fool stops at believing in love when they can actually know it first hand just like only a fool would accept belief in god instead of demanding an actual god, in person.

 

[lightgigantic]

NP. Pick up something heavy and drop it on your foot. Repeat until you can recognize a physical reality impacting on your foot.

If I am willed against such a conclusion (and can spout all sorts of nonsense against having a broken foot .... maybe I could say I am undergoing an intermediary stage of the evolution of the human species or something), what then?

 

[swarm]

If I am willed against such a conclusion (and can spout all sorts of nonsense against having a broken foot .... maybe I could say I am undergoing an intermediary stage of the evolution of the human species or something), what then?

What about it? I don't care what nonsense you spout from your mouth. Your broken foot is sufficient.

 

[lightgigantic]

What about it? I don't care what nonsense you spout from your mouth. Your broken foot is sufficient.

but not sufficient for the unwilling however ...