On the nature of the theist/atheist exchanges

[Yazata]

By its nature, science is a naturalistic pursuit. It correlates physical events with other physical events.

In some areas such as physics, that can be accomplished with great precision and reliability. That's powered the tremendous expansion of engineering in the last 150 years and transformed average people's lives.

And that in turn has increased science's street-level prestige and led some less-sophisticated people to embrace scientism and the belief that science is indeed the fount of all knowledge and the answer to all questions.

They fail to recognize that they have simply exchanged one faith for another.

 

[universaldistress]

By its nature, science is a naturalistic pursuit. It correlates physical events with other physical events.

In some areas such as physics, that can be accomplished with great precision and reliability. That's powered the tremendous expansion of engineering in the last 150 years and transformed average people's lives.

And that in turn has increased science's street-level prestige and led some less-sophisticated people to embrace scientism and the belief that science is indeed the fount of all knowledge and the answer to all questions.

They fail to recognize that they have simply exchanged one faith for another.

BS. Scientific advances are documented and proven to exist/work, backed up by data.
Theist BS is documented by fiction and no data backs it up.

Do religions actually believe the Earth is round yet? Of course. This is evidence that science has more power than religion. The fact religion is falling back into symbolism because it can't prove anything just solidifies the atheist's cause.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

By its nature, science is a naturalistic pursuit. It correlates physical events with other physical events.

In some areas such as physics, that can be accomplished with great precision and reliability. That's powered the tremendous expansion of engineering in the last 150 years and transformed average people's lives.

And that in turn has increased science's street-level prestige and led some less-sophisticated people to embrace scientism and the belief that science is indeed the fount of all knowledge and the answer to all questions.

They fail to recognize that they have simply exchanged one faith for another.

I would like to give credit to science for the good it has produced. Many dedicated women and men are seeking the truth of the natural world. Glory and honor to the Creator.

Science per se is based in the material/physical realm. As such, it limits its research to what can be put under the proverbial microscope. This works well except for human nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, points out that in his own nature, the human person unites the spiritual and material worlds. (CCC 355-368) Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is a profound union of the material anatomy and the immaterial spiritual soul.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be studied by scientific methods. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature -- the human being one sees in the mirror. We are spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. We are destined for eternal life with God.

A lot can be explained by scientific inquiry. But it takes Divine Revelation to explain human nature.

 

[universaldistress]

I would like to give credit to science for the good it has produced. Many dedicated women and men are seeking the truth of the natural world. Glory and honor to the Creator.

Science per se is based in the material/physical realm. As such, it limits its research to what can be put under the proverbial microscope. This works well except for human nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, points out that in his own nature, the human person unites the spiritual and material worlds. (CCC 355-368) Catholicism places humanity at the pinnacle of creation because human nature is a profound union of the material anatomy and the immaterial spiritual soul.

Ah, one says. The spiritual cannot be studied by scientific methods. True. But that does not exclude spiritual reality which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought. These tools are part of human nature -- the human being one sees in the mirror. We are spirit/matter, rational/corporeal, soul and body. We are destined for eternal life with God.

A lot can be explained by scientific inquiry. But it takes Divine Revelation to explain human nature.

BS. Spirituality is just a process of the human (physical) mind. Brain scans reveal a certain area of the brain activates during subjective religious feelings. There is no spiritual world, existence etc. It is all in the mind.

Unless you can prove your claim then it has no place on a science forum.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

BS. Spirituality is just a process of the human (physical) mind. Brain scans reveal a certain area of the brain activates during subjective religious feelings. There is no spiritual world, existence etc. It is all in the mind.

Unless you can prove your claim then it has no place on a science forum.

One can use what is inside of our heads to figure out the existence of immaterial/spiritual reality. The human intellect has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

 

[universaldistress]

One can use what is inside of our heads to figure out the existence of immaterial/spiritual reality. The human intellect has the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

I think you are referring to fictional fancies, imaginative conjecture. This has no place within a scientific context. We are here for the truth, not for some BS story a primitive told many centuries ago. I do not say there isn't some good in the morality of theism, I just question blind belief in something unproven.

All you talk about is mind games, not reality.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I think you are referring to fictional fancies, imaginative conjecture. This has no place within a scientific context. We are here for the truth, not for some BS story a primitive told many centuries ago. I do not say there isn't some good in the morality of theism, I just question blind belief in something unproven.

All you talk about is mind games, not reality.

Would you mind rereading my post 25 again?

I wasn't talking about fictional fancies, imaginative conjecture.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

Everything is not explainable by science.

 

[Yazata]

Some steps in the scientistic argument seem to be missing.

How could somebody argue from science's undoubted success in correlating physical events with other physical events, to this seeming faith that natural science is the fount of all knowledge and the answer to all possible questions?

That broader faith seems to have gotten way out in front of the existing evidence, and likely in front of any possible evidence.

 

[Enmos]

I'm asking - What can be hoped to be accomplished in theist/atheist exchanges?

Ask the theists.

 

[universaldistress]

Would you mind rereading my post 25 again?

I wasn't talking about fictional fancies, imaginative conjecture.

LOL. Of course you were. Prove spiritual reality even exists. Name something that is immaterial.

 

[wynn]

All you talk about is mind games, not reality.

The standard reply to this is:
While your molars rot.

 

[wynn]

Some steps in the scientistic argument seem to be missing.

How could somebody argue from science's undoubted success in correlating physical events with other physical events, to this seeming faith that natural science is the fount of all knowledge and the answer to all possible questions?

That broader faith seems to have gotten way out in front of the existing evidence, and likely in front of any possible evidence.

Absolutely. We cannot use science to justify the use of science.

Perhaps the absolute faith some people have in science is a case of something like "beginner's luck" (in gambling) or "beginner's faith" (in approaching a new philosophy/religion) - when a person becomes totally swept away by the initial success or initial conviction.

 

[wynn]

The religion discussions aren't totally without value though. Even if we aren't likely to change our views wholesale, there's a good chance that our views will become more sophisticated as they encounter intelligent counterargument.

That, btw, is why I often reply to your posts. It's not that I'm trying to pick on you. In many cases your posts are very thought provoking and they stimulate me to evolve my own thinking a little bit. I enjoy being stretched that way. So keep your ideas coming.

Thanks.

 

[NMSquirrel]

LOL. Of course you were. Prove spiritual reality even exists. Name something that is immaterial.

Madonna.. she is an immaterial girl..:booo:

I just question blind belief in something unproven.

who said anything about 'blind'?

question everything..hold on to what is good.

just because God cannot be measured, does not make him a bad thing.