I don’t care how old the earth is, or how old you believe the earth is. I don’t care who did or did not evolve from what, or who you believe did or did not evolve from what.
We can have a discussion about what honesty and integrity look like in practice in a scientific context, and about who is or isn’t being honest. But when I can’t even get an agreement that honesty and integrity are necessary in principle, I can no longer engage in fruitful discussions any more.
To dismiss calls for honesty and integrity on the grounds that they are “admonitions,” or “one person’s views,” or “claiming superiority,” or to ask “Who gave you the authority?” is to all intents and purposes flat-out demanding the right to tell lies.
I’m sorry, but I can not assume good faith on the part of anyone who takes such a line.
I agree, until or unless we sing from the same page about what is or is not acceptable there can be no discussion.
I will try and explain my position once more, take it or leave it, but at least try and understand it.
I am not doubting your integrity or your scientific practice.
However, Black and white thinking does not migrate outside Science and you are trying to impose it on me.
You appear to have certainties about what is or is not. That is black and white. You refuse to accept that someone (me) can think any other way.
Until or unless you try and understand a point of view that is not scientific we have no conversation. I do not have to think, process and understand as you do, it is as simple as that.
Black & white thinking doesn’t work inside science! It’s the non-scientific minded thinkers that seem to most need that advice. The only time you might find fairly clear-cut binary conclusions from scientific thinkers is on these sorts of more general philosophical principles: i.e. are honesty and integrity essential or not? That’s probably pretty black and white as far as data handling and communication goes. It would be a shame to discover that Christian communities have ceded that particular value entirely over to science communities and are then actually obliged to look up to them as the higher moral exemplars! (at least in outwardly declared principle). If that’s the way religious people want to play it … it’s their loss, when they can’t even hold on to their own ethical heritage and imperatives!
Does that mean that they agree with you>
Or does that mean they agree with themselves.
When someone makes the accusation, they have to understand the thinking of the poor recipient of their judgement. ( would wager that in most cases there is more at stake than integrity, and the misunderstanding takes both parties.
As for how since treats data. There is a distinct difference between the start and the finish of the process. Once something has been decided, it is almost immutable. The problem then arises when someone looking from the outside, sees an incongruity that science denies, or even considers factors that science either cannot, or refuses to acknowledge or see.
People lay down “the Law” be it science or Scripture.
Both these authorities rely on consensus of what those “laws” are. Being different appears to be a crime.
Ignoring reality (mountains of consilient evidence) in favor of promoting some fringe conclusion is an example of the crime of dishonesty that will get you admonished in scientific communities.
Would you claim that science is the only way to view reality?
Or am I being too literal.
By whose law? By whose authority? Who is the judge? Are scientific communities God?
Who defines the understanding of this evidence? Who decides the relevance of this data? Who defines the viewpoint of this data?
Why can you not see that Science is not the ultimate litmus for knowledge or understanding?
Why can you not see that the scientific method has limits?
Why can you not see that all this is the ultimate Ad hominum? (You must think or be qualified by my standards and rules)
BioLogos has made its mission to get science as a valid viewpoint It seems to have forgotten that there might be other viewpoints., or that the scientific one can actually come into conflict with faith.
Science claims to be understanding what God has done, but des not need to recognise Him as doing it. (paradox)
What I am objecting to mist of all is to be called dishonest. I am not. I say what i believe. That is the definition of honesty. You do not have to agree with me but perhaps you have to concede that I have the right to my beliefs *without the condescension of knowing they are wrong!
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
27
You use scientific creationism all of the time, such as when you argue for a recent global flood by pointing out the deposits created by Mt. St. Helens or when you argue for accelerated nuclear decay.
The one flaw TE doesn’t have is that it doesn’t have to ignore the evidence from the universe around us like you have to do.
Some people can’t be a Christian if it requires them to abandon reason and logic which is precisely what scientific creationism demands.
1 Like
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
28
Science has been the most successful way of looking at objective reality. This is why you rely on science throughout your day. When you go to the doctor you expect treatments based on science. When you watch the weather report on TV you expect a forecast based on science.
Science absolutely does have limits, but they aren’t what you think they are. You think the limits of science are your beliefs, in that science should be thrown out if it contradicts your beliefs. You even try to convince us that fossilized feather impressions are actually leaves.
Just like Heliocentrism came into conflict with Bible based Geocentric beliefs in the 17th century. Do you accept science based Heliocentrism?
So because it works in one aspect it must work in all?
That is a logical fallacy
And?
Yo fnfd that offensive> Fallacious? Wrong?
Once again you claim a comparison that I do not agree with. but, of course, you must be right.
It seems that you are inflexible.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
30
No. Science only works in the objective universe where we can gather evidence and test hypotheses. Science doesn’t work in the world of human subjectivity, such as with morality and ethics. Science doesn’t stop working just because we don’t like its conclusions.
The entire point of science is to put our beliefs to the test, and if they come up short we toss them. That’s the entire scientific enterprise.
Perhaps you should clarify (consider) what evidence
Interesting choice of word
But science would appear to dictate where subjectivity is relevant and where it cannot apply
Or to put it another way. Perhaps the conclusions are more subjective than you admit. after all, your choice of evidence is subjective.
For instance, you claim that morality is not relevant to ToE.
(I claim otherwise)
So we have a divide before we even start.
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
32
Objective, verifiable observations.
Science doesn’t do that. The universe does. We can’t float through the air because we subjectively believe gravity doesn’t exist. There are just hard, cold facts of the universe that no amount of belief can make go away. The universe doesn’t conform itself to our beliefs.
Morality is beyond the limits of science. Our genetics and physical development obviously play a role, but the ultimate moral questions are still subjective and not amenable to science.
but perhaps you did not bother with that part of my claim
And then you shoot of at a tangent to convince me that you are right.
But not Theistic evolution (which is not a scientific theory)
So you do not have to consider them?
Am I “making things up” when I include them?
And that is the crux of our different viewpoints
Richard
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
34
You appear to be making an attempt to make the evidence go away. That’s quite telling.
Of course I consider the subjectivity of the human experience. Why wouldn’t I? The difference between us appears to be my ability to differentiate between the subjective and objective.
Yes, it does appear to be the difference. You seem to think Flat Earthers can make the Earth flatten into a disc by just believing it to be true.
Forgive me, an honest question. I am of an older generation that didn’t grow up using emogis and you seem to be using this one a lot that is unfamiliar to me. What does it mean? That you are a blind person?
It is my way of showing that the person is making an assertion as being correct (and the reciprocal assertion that I am wrong)
Think of it like the uniform for the men in Black or a person wearing sunglasses for the sake of it rather than to block the sun (Or indicate blindness)
Perhaps it is less offensive than other responses?
False dichotomy: as with any literature, the first question has to be “What kind of literature is this?” If the literature type shifts, then the meaning shifts – and the only way to know the literary type is to study the original context.
Sounds like Richard Dawkins before he admitted he was wrong.
Science doesn’t say any of that because no one was there to make the proper observations. The most science can say is that according to what has been observed and recorded, these events do not fit the ordinary pattern.
Incorrect – science is not capable of determining a negative. Certain ignorant people may have asserted what you say, but science was not capable of addressing such a thing.
That’s an assumption that does not stand up to the evidence. From the first few centuries of documents that we have, the opening of Genesis was taken as myth, as allegory, as parable, and sometimes as literal. Augustine is a good example; he said that Genesis 1 was allegory, that of course God created everything in an instant, but for the sake of feeble human minds described it as taking a week.
And for those who took it literally, they actually did so, not picking and choosing what to read literally and what to dismiss (the way that YEC does it): the firmament is a solid dome that holds up the stars, there are actual windows in that dome, etc.
Would you please stop arguing against something that no one here is saying?
But that attempt is almost all you do here!!!
Only to those who (1) insist that the Bible is supposed to teach science and (2) those who don’t understand either science or the scriptures.
Faith rests on evidence, not on denying it.
Amen.
How can you show that it is?
You claim things to be history without presenting any evidence that they were recorded as history – indeed you refuse to examine the evidence as to what kinds of literature you’re really dealing with, which means you have nothing but subjective opinion and no interest in what you’re really reading.
So does almost all ANE history.
Only to those who shut their eyes as to how human literature works and to what it is they’re reading.
Quite so, especially when the source material someone is claiming to operate from admonishes Christians to admonish each other.
It means that they operate using logic and evidence without introducing opinion or subjective thought. You have plainly stated that you do not need either logic or evidence.
Quite so!
If you do so without logic or evidence then yes, it is wrong.
But he rejects evidence as opinion.
If you can say that, then you never understood even the basics of a single science course. The choice of evidence of a single researcher might possibly be subjective, but publish something based on that approach and the result will be ridicule.
Then you’re not talking about ToE, you’re talking about your own feelings. ToE isn’t capable of addressing ethics, it is only capable of addressing what can be observed.
Yes – because you demand that science has to conform to your personal feelings about things.
You’re certainly not doing science or engaging in rational thought!
Because fairies do not paint the colors on flowers.
