is there a reconciliatory christian view towards science?

thanks...

 

I don't think any scientists are trying to prove anything divine. They are investigating the why behind why humans tend to be religious, in all cultures, and all places on earth. They are investigating how the brain is influenced by what subjects report as "religious experiences."

You could easily study meth in the same way.

So I don't understand your question at all. I don't see scientists out to "prove" any particular big concept.

 

I picture an old man shaking his fist at the heavens yelling, 'Why won't you leave me alone you persistent b*stard."

 

I would say that OEC is effectively the mainstream belief today, but I believe that very few churches have an official position the age of the earth because it isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible. YEC developed its number by tracing back certain events in the Bible, but it relies on a number of assumptions to deal with gaps in the historical timeline laid out in the Bible. It is, therefore, essentially a traditional belief that was widely held for many centuries because it seemed reasonable at the time based some seemingly reasonable assumptions about certain gaps in the timeline and on the scientific knowledge of the day. As science started to show that the earth was much older, however, many people went back and had a closer look at the Bible and saw that the assumptions that had been made about the gaps in the timeline were not necessarily sound. There is no disconnect between good science and Christianity and if the Bible is true then it must be consistent with what good science says as well, and indeed OEC believes that what the Bible says is wholly consistent with what good science says about the age of the earth.

There are a number of similar, assumption based, long standing, traditional beliefs in Islam, my Sunni friends tell me, although I’m reluctant to mention any here because I don’t know what your beliefs are and I wouldn’t want to possibly offend. I think you are likely to agree, however, that in Islam there are “fundamentalist” groups and groups that talk about a “literal interpretation” of the Qur’an that are actually misinterpreting it, and the same is true in Christianity. Interestingly there are a very large number of parallels between the two faiths like this when one starts to have a closer look.

 

My apologies, but I’m afraid that my frustration level with Mr. LSD is rather high. This isn’t the first time we’ve “discussed” the issue of falsifiability, and he consistently refuses to even look at the fact that essentially exactly the same issues he’s complaining about apply to evolution as well. I suspect that he does now this but he knows that it undermines his position, so he just closes his eyes and plugs his ears and ploughs ahead with his fallacious reasoning. One thing for sure is that he doesn’t care about facts or logic at all. If the facts don’t support his position he simply ignores them, or tries to misrepresent them as he’s trying to do with Karl Popper. I should really just ignore him altogether.

 

Please elaborate.

 

Ok. Good to hear!

 

I'm not sure what you're asking for. If you want me to elaborate on my past discussions with LSD I'm afraid I'd rather move on to other posts. If you're asking about evolution's issues with falsifiability then I think there are quick summaries available on the internet that would do a better job quicker.

 

Please find me one you think has merit.

 

Please feel free to pick any one you like.
http://www.google.ca/search?q=evolu...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

Well, you can start with an assumption and try to disprove it, or you can start with a compelling fact, like the fact that well over 90% of the people on earth believe in a god or gods, and pursue it to find out what it means.

Based on my personal experience I would say yes. I grew up in a family that was nominally Christian but essentially non-practicing and atheistic, or at least indistinguishable from atheists.

I believe studies have been done that show a very high percentage of people believe in a god or gods. This of course leads to a large number of further questions, like is it the same god? This question and all the others are things that can be studied. You can start breaking down these beliefs and comparing and contrasting, for example, and much of this has been done.

 

Grizzled,

I apologize for any frustration I have caused you. That was not my intent, but I too can get frustrated and perhaps the two of us have functioned as a sort of frustration feedback loop.

That said, I am interested in why you think the theory of evolution is non-falsifiable as I happen to disagree with that assessment. I promise to consider your arguments on their merits and reply to the best of my abilities. I will not, however, argue with Google. There is simply too much content (as well as junk) on both sides of every issue. I am interested in your opinions and arguments. If you aren't interested in mine, you are of course welcome to ignore them.

 

I did not say it was non-falsifiable. I said it had issues with falsifiability. Do you understand its issues with falsifiability?

 

Link One: TalkOrigins link that specifically debunks this claim.

Link Two: Free thinker link that might be a source of good debate but makes zero real points while resorting to an incoherant argument that borders on absurdity.

This is ridiculous. Big-words notwithstanding.

Link Three: Wikipedia. Probably the most objective and the first link I clicked. Lists anti-evolution claims and counterpoints. Moreover, it rather specifically outlines how these claims are really moot, since proving false or proving true are not the only outcomes of a good theory (see Philip Kitcher's arguments).

Link four: Yahoo Answers. Give me a break.

Link five: Conservopedia. I'm stopping here.

Conclusion: Your claim of "quick summaries available on the internet" appears to be unsupported without significant effort and/or delving. Moreover, none of these (well maybe wiki did, I only read section 4.2) addressed the importance of the Hardy Weinberg principle as it relates to the subject in question.

I don't understand your claim regarding the falsifiability of evolution, grizzled. What are you trying to say?

 

Are you telling me that you jumped into this "debate" without bothering to find out what was being discussed?? Now it's my turn to say that you are not normally this much of an ass.

 

Either it's falsifiable or it's not. Saying that the theory of evolution "[has] issues with falsifiability" only muddies the waters.

The reason we got off on this tangent was that I took issue with your claim that science and religion employ the same investigative method. It seems like you agree with the Popperian standard of falsifiability, so does that mean you believe that the proposition of God's existence is falsifiable?

 

You and Louis were arguing. In your argument with him you told him to:

In other words, you told him to look it up because you were not going to say. That's childish, but whatever. You got more and more pissed about it though, and acted like an ass.

You apologized and we began to re-discuss anew. Independent of your previous spat as far as I was concerned.

Ummm. So, I asked for details regarding your as-yet unreleased observations on evolutions falsifiability. You responded with a cursory "look at these links".

I looked and honestly found little supporting your undetailed "claim".

So, I'm left to query you directly again. And now you're more pissed, no doubt because the links you supplied so flippantly sucked.

In short, it's your own fault, and you're the ass. Not me.

 

I been saying that **** for years. And if you heard it, that meant your ass. I never gave much thought to what it meant. I just thought it was some cold-blooded **** to say to a mother****er before I popped a cap in his ass. But I read some **** this mornin' made me think different. See, now I'm thinking, maybe it means you're the evil man, and I'm the righteous man, and Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or, it could mean you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that **** ain't the truth. The truth is, you're the weak, and I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

 

What a surprise. You are once again ducking the clear facts and issues that undermine your claims, and ploughing on with your fallacious line of reasoning. I’m tempted to ask you why you hate facts and logic so much, and why you disrespect science so much, but I really don’t care anymore. Have a nice life!

 

Really? What part of anything that's happened in this discussion led you to believe that? If you made a baseless assumption then maybe it would be a good thing for you to stand up and take responsibility for it, don't you think?