Science vs. faith

[skyrider44]

You mean in your opinion, science was their God. I guess we'll add the discipline of science to the list of things you don't understand.

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janadele are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

: Science doesn't have an altar, theology, or dogma.

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

: You seem needlessly peevish.

Your finite senses seem to be picking up errant data.

 

[carlitos]

Perhaps you haven't been around here much. The burden of proof is to show some evidence for God, not the other way around.

And we didn't discover quarks or the Higgs-Bosun with "humankind's finite senses," there was some laboratory equipment involved.

 

[RandFan]

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

If Jesus could show himself to Thomas then Jesus can show himself to me.

Faith in Ganesh is not justified.
Faith in Allah is not justified.
Faith in Zeus is not justified.
Faith in Yahweh is not justified.

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janaelle are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janaelle would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

I take the null hypothesis. Just as I take the null hypothesis that Leprechauns exist. The burden of proof lies with the person making a claim. I'm not claiming that god does not exist. I'm claiming there is no justification to believe in gods and leprechauns.

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Many people who work in laboratories conducting scientific research are Mormons. So, those Mormons worship science.

Science has no dogma. Science does not require or even ask for fealty. Science holds nothing sacred. Science has no prophets. Science is simply a means to learn about the world.

Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.

 

[kerikiwi]

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? ....The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.
...... Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes
No. Couthness has nothing to do with it.
Do you believe unicorns exist? How would you go about proving that they don't exist?
The arrogant position is that which claims to know something to be true not only without evidence, but despite evidence to the contrary. The only way anything can be shown to be true is through humankind's finite senses. All else is baseless assertion.

 

[RandFan]

Philosophic burden of proof

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".

Skyrider, asking us to prove that god does not exist is appealing to ignorance.

 

[kerikiwi]

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

A laboratory is not an altar, any more than my kitchen sink is.
The scientific method is not theology any more than my butter chicken recipe is.
Stop being so silly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

Then how are we to distinguish your religion from those false religions that are simply invented by humans? Why would a just god not clearly communicate the injustice of racism to its prophets?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

I'm sure everyone here applauds the LDS for its rejection of its long-held racist policies. But the point is that those policies were once strongly supported by those who claimed to be representatives God. How is this not consistent with Mormonism being just another imaginary construct of humans?

 

[Pup]

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science.

The scientific method itself hasn't evolved. In fact, sticking to the same scientific method is what has produced results over the years.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."

I suppose that one could say the LDS church claims that their method of getting information from God about church policies hasn't changed either: it's always been through God's direct revelation to a prophet.

Lots of members, including subsequent prophets, believed that Brigham Young's racist policies were direct from God. So one is stuck with the problem: either God was once racist but changed to be less so, or the prophet can't be relied on to get messages from God correct.

 

[dafydd]

The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

We are in agreement.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Right, just like garages are the altars of automotive maintenance, and the Haynes manuals are its theology.

 

[John Jones]

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

But I wasn't making any ignorant proclamations about the 'discipline of faith', and you were talking out of turn about science.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

It's irrelevant to me what your scripture says. You can't say the same thing about science, because you're using one of it's products to compose and present your rejoinder.

BTW, I didn't call you uncouth, but if you continue to put words in my mouth, uncouth would be a very apt description of such behavior. Truculent would be another.

[mercy snip!]

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology. .

Laboratories are not altars. They're work environments. The scientific method is not a theology. It's the best discipline going for understanding the physical universe and its laws.

If we can talk about contributions to the betterment of mankind on this planet, I'll stack the accomplishments of science against gazing at stones in a hat any day.

Your finite senses seem to be picking up errant data.

That's why science depends on the peer review process.

 

[Empress]

You ask a question based on a supposition not of my making.

My point was that just as the Church has had to evolve in some aspects of its doctrine, so, too, has science. The Church isn't administered by God, who is perfect. Mortal, fallible men and women are called to do God's work, and sometimes they fail. Why does that surprise you? Do you know any perfect men or women?

If you're going to call the Church racist today, then I suppose we must insist that today, man-made heavier-than-air vehicles are not flying, and the world isn't making use of more than five computers.

The LDS church was supposedly brought back to earth by god b/c none of the other churches were correct. The LDS church claims it was set up by god with a pipeline to that perfect god through the living prophet, one of whom was Brigham Young, on record as being a rather horrible, racist man. Are you saying that god was perfect but racist in times past (an oxymoron, imo), but he has grown and he's perfect and non-racist now? I ask again, why follow a god that has shown itself to be a racist *******? Not to mention, not bothering to give the most basic of instructions to its righteous (ie: boiling water).

If your god really wasn't petty and racist once upon a time, why didn't he smite Young good and proper when he was making such revolting statements in god's name? Why doesn't this god ever do anything useful? What good is this god?

Please feel free to do that. In turn, I suppose I would be justified in adding the discipline of faith to the things you do not understand--or perhaps have long since cast aside.

When Doubting Thomas finally confessed that the risen Christ was, in fact, the risen Christ, the Savior said: "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" [underlining added] (John 20:29).

Of course, this is foolishness, isn't it? The Bible is fiction, as is the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. Thus it's uncouth of me to quote scripture.

I assume that most of those who demand science-based answers from Janadele are atheists (not just critics of the LDS Church). That being the case, it seems to me that Janadele would be justified in asking you and those who think as you do to prove that God does not exist. Because if he doesn't exist, faith is a folly; moreover, that which is true can be shown to be such solely through humankind's finite senses. To put it mildly, that strikes me as an arrogant position.

Shifting the burden of proof. Naughty naughty. The proper way to start is with the null hypothesis: that is, gods do not exist, and change that hypothesis only with evidence. So far the amount of evidence for yours or anyone else's god, is a big ol' goose egg.

Faith by definition is belief without evidence. So yes, faith is folly, whether it appears arrogant to you or not. Every shred of evidence we have points to a wholly naturalistic world--no gods needed. And we certainly don't need gods that aren't going to bother helping out starving children, or explaining basic science like germ theory. We'll muddle through somehow without supernatural beings just as we have since mankind evolved. Your god is dead.

 

[joobz]

Laboratories are its altars, and the scientific method--valuable though it is--constitutes its theology.

Your biggest critique against science is to say it is just like your religion?
Except, by your admission, is valuable, likely due to the fact that it yields quantifiable and useful results.