Anti-reality culture

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2368

[Igakusei]

"But wait, we only reject false science!"

[ClubV12]

Thats a two way street. In general scientist reject all notion of divine intervention. Thus, they draw wrong conclusions.

Solution? A mix of science with the REALITY of the biblical record. Where one does not agree with the other it's only because YOU don't understand the connection. Good luck publishing your results anywhere within the science community. I'm left wondering... who is the fool in this scenario? :)

[Igakusei]

Thats a two way street. In general scientist reject all notion of divine intervention. Thus, they draw wrong conclusions.

Solution? A mix of science with the REALITY of the biblical record. Where one does not agree with the other it's only because YOU don't understand the connection. Good luck publishing your results anywhere within the science community. I'm left wondering... who is the fool in this scenario?

You're welcome to come up with an alternative model that makes logical sense of the observable evidence. That's precisely what the Discovery Institute said they'd have published 6 years ago, but for some reason they're still putting it off....

All I've heard is "Goddidit, and I just ignore/dismiss the material evidence."

[ClubV12]

All I've heard is "the big bang did it", and I just ignore/dismiss the biblical record."

There is a TON of scienctific papers that deal with the science of biblical records. When I was Georgetown University there were a number of Professors that took great delight in publishing and posting such scientific findings in support of the biblical record. Often, for no other reason that to disturb the status quo.

Creationist don't have to be religious or christians to understand the good science that supports the basic premise, "God did it".

[Igakusei]

All I've heard is "the big bang did it", and I just ignore/dismiss the biblical record."

There is a TON of scienctific papers that deal with the science of biblical records. When I was Georgetown University there were a number of Professors that took great delight in publishing and posting such scientific findings in support of the biblical record. Often, for no other reason that to disturb the status quo.

Creationist don't have to be religious or christians to understand the good science that supports the basic premise, "God did it".

Then you haven't been listening.

Here's a good start:

Here's the "religious references expunged" version, if you'd rather watch that:

[ClubV12]

Listening to who? One man's opinion, with "good" scientific evidence?

Lots of scientists have opinions and theories, very well expressed. Lot's of creationists also have excellent scientific opinion and theories also well expressed.

The two way street is that some scientists choose to totally ignore the biblical record while some creationists choose to totally ignore the scientific data.

The thrust of THIS thread focus's on the group that tends to ignore science all together if it conflicts with their closely held religious views. I'm simply pointing out the same could be said for those scientists who choose to ignore any and all biblical records if it conflicts with their closely held scientific view.

Either way, your in one side of the road in the ditch. I recommend the middle of the road approach for both sides. There is no conflict when both sides come together leaving their prejudice behind. Much easier for christians to do than for scientists to do, in my opinion.

[Igakusei]

Listening to who? One man's opinion, with "good" scientific evidence?

Lots of scientists have opinions and theories, very well expressed. Lot's of creationists also have excellent scientific opinion and theories also well expressed.

The two way street is that some scientists choose to totally ignore the biblical record while some creationists choose to totally ignore the scientific data.

The thrust of THIS thread focus's on the group that tends to ignore science all together if it conflicts with their closely held religious views. I'm simply pointing out the same could be said for those scientists who choose to ignore any and all biblical records if it conflicts with their closely held scientific view.

Either way, your in one side of the road in the ditch. I recommend the middle of the road approach for both sides. There is no conflict when both sides come together leaving their prejudice behind. Much easier for christians to do than for scientists to do, in my opinion.

Well, I can only speak for myself here: I would LOVE to believe in an immortal existence after death, complete with instantaneous travel and a vastly improved intellect. I don't completely disregard the Bible as a matter of principle, I just haven't seen a convincing reason to treat it as anything other than a diverse collection of Jewish myths, and Judeo-Christian theology. I haven't heard a single convincing argument that it must have been written (or even partially inspired) by an omnipotent, benevolent God, and I've heard a LOT of convincing arguments that it couldn't have been.

Almost as convincing to me as the evidence itself, is my personal observation of how so many Christians evaluate everything based on a prior assumption of the infallibility of the Bible (in parts or in whole). I believe that being married to a conclusion before viewing the evidence is not a reliable way to ascertain knowledge, especially when the evidence (in my opinion) so clearly contradicts so many of the assumptions many Christians make.

So I would LIKE to believe in the Bible (at least the good parts), but I cannot make myself believe something that I don't feel is justified. If anything, I'm biased towards Christianity because I'd like heaven to be true.

[ClubV12]

What did we actually learn from this video? From this "one man's opinion"? That the Universe is expanding, no biblical conflict there. That many parts of the universe of millions of years old. Again, no conflict there. That the "big bang" is the starting point for our knowledge, for us, as earthlings. Possible conflict there in how you understand the big bang. I understand the big bang took place over a 6 day period of 24 hours per day, about 6 thousand years ago. No conflict there with science when you understand it!

There is nothing new in that video that I haven't heard repeated in various ways with charts and diagrams and video's before. There is nothing in it that is in direct conflict with the biblical view either, when correctly understood. The "evidence" presented supports a creationist view point just as much as it does an evolutionist view point.

[Igakusei]

What did we actually learn from this video? From this "one man's opinion"? That the Universe is expanding, no biblical conflict there. That many parts of the universe of millions of years old. Again, no conflict there. That the "big bang" is the starting point for our knowledge, for us, as earthlings. Possible conflict there in how you understand the big bang. I understand the big bang took place over a 6 day period of 24 hours per day, about 6 thousand years ago. No conflict there with science when you understand it!

There is nothing new in that video that I haven't heard repeated in various ways with charts and diagrams and video's before. There is nothing in it that is in direct conflict with the biblical view either, when correctly understood. The "evidence" presented supports a creationist view point just as much as it does an evolutionist view point.

Please watch the rest of the series. I only posted the first one so that the links would all be in the right sidebar.

[ClubV12]

Actually, I've got better things to do than watch that particular series and comment further on it. Looks real interesting, hope some folks enjoy it, I've seen enough myself. Moving on...

[Bravus]

I guess the point I was trying to make, probably too concisely, is that what I witness here and in other places is that for many believers the *first* impulse these days - on everything from healing 'miracles' like those claimed by the charlatans in the stories I linked to, to origins to climate change to the effects of coffee - is to debunk the science rather than look at it seriously.

Disposing of inconvenient science with claims about the assumptions or motivations of the authors, or sweeping generalisations about the limitations of science, seems as though it's the default position for many.

And I think that's a relatively new phenomenon, and a very unfortunate one.

[Overaged]

Well, I can only speak for myself here: I would LOVE to believe in an immortal existence after death, complete with instantaneous travel and a vastly improved intellect.

If anything, I'm biased towards Christianity because I'd like heaven to be true.

I have "instantaneous travel" all the time.

Heaven is true; and it begins here on earth. Life is a garden, so dig it!

[LifeHiscost]

I would LOVE to believe in an immortal existence after death

[Bravus]

I guess another way to phrase it is that for some (not all by any means), Mrs White's phrase 'science falsely so-called' has come to be a synonym for 'science that disagrees with my existing ideas'.

[Igakusei]

Life, I know you like quoting Bible verses, but quoting Bible verses has about as much impact on someone who doesn't believe in their inspiration as me quoting Captain Picard would have on you.

That said, studying the "heavens" has shown me a merciless and indifferent universe with no sign of a benevolent god who cares.

I also don't believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being could ever consider faith a virtue, but that's a longer post.

[Overaged]

That said, studying the "heavens" has shown me a merciless and indifferent universe with no sign of a benevolent god who cares.

Kind of like is the glass half full, or half empty thing.

[Tom Wetmore]

I guess another way to phrase it is that for some (not all by any means), Mrs White's phrase 'science falsely so-called' has come to be a synonym for 'science that disagrees with my existing ideas'.

... and strangely ironic that their existing ideas often involve subscribing to some form of pseudo-science.

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I guess another way to phrase it is that for some (not all by any means), Mrs White's phrase 'science falsely so-called' has come to be a synonym for 'science that disagrees with my existing ideas'.

... and strangely ironic that their existing ideas often involve subscribing to some form of pseudo-science.

Nice cliches boys!

[Bravus]

What, 'science falsely so-called'? I agree, it has become something of a cliche in SDA circles. It's exactly what I'm trying to challenge. Cliches typically encode a deeper truth but are used thoughtlessly.

[ClubV12]

I won't hesitate to use the term when it's applicable, cliche or not, it is often right on target. The term does not apply to the first video link posted on this thread however. That video is pretty straight forward, it includes a number of facts, some basic well understood math and the usual disparaging comments designed to erode confidence in the bible record (myths and legends). It establishes the beginning of time as the "big bang", a scientific THEORY, which in my opinion ranks no higher than "myth" or "legend" itself!

[Guest]

Amen Club!

[CoAspen]

Definition 1 -Pseudo Science

A simple definition of science follows;

The YourDictionary Web site defines science as the “systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.” This includes the departments of learning and bodies of fact in disciplines such as anthropology, archaeology, astronomy, biology, botany, chemistry, cybernetics, geography, geology, mathematics, medicine, physics, physiology, psychology, social science, sociology, and zoology.

Scientists generally add to their knowledge by conducting research using the scientific method. The scientific method is a process that applies logic, order, and critical thinking skills to solving problems and finding new information.

The steps to the scientific method are as follows:

Ask a question to define the problem or issue you wish to resolve.

Do background research to learn what others have discovered about your topic.

Construct a hypothesis to determine how you think your questions should be answered.

Test your hypothesis by conducting an experiment.

Analyze the data you have collected during the experiment.

Formulate a conclusion based on your research and the data you’ve gathered from your experiment.

Communicate your results to others who have an interest in the topic.

One of the most interesting points to remember about the scientific method is that it can’t absolutely verify that something is true. The scientific method can only prove that a particular hypothesis is false. In regards to the scientific method, Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Might I suggest that people use common sense, read the defs, and then stop throwing around made up terms to express their disbelief in something.

A person can disagree, but please just say so with out using terminology that has no meaning. Sheesh!!!!

[Bravus]

Pseudoscience would then largely consist of clinging to something that science has falsified. Homeopathy is a good (and relatively non-controversial, at least here) example, as is astrology.

More controversially here are some of EGW's claims about the physical ills caused by masturbation: well and truly falsified with a heap of science but still clung to by some. The problem is not with the claim 'masturbation is bad', it's the attempt to then use science (e.g. zinc depletion) to bolster that claim in ways that abuse the science.

Science is not the standard of everything, and has a limited domain of applicability. Nowhere near all faith claims are vulnerable to science.

I don't have any objection to people making claims that are contradicted by science. The problem arises when they try to use science to bolster those claims. And, I should note, trying to make a negative evaluation of a scientific research study (the scientists were biased, or whatever) is itself making a scientific claim which is susceptible to being tested with evidence.

[Overaged]

Pseudoscience would then largely consist of clinging to something that science has falsified.

I think you are kind of talking in circles about "false science," and I don't mean that disrespectfully. False science is saying something is "science" without having yet proved it, or "falsified" it.

I think I am starting to understand why you feel frustrated when others don't have & use the same level of knowledge as you seem to; but I would be more careful in the types of conclusions I came up with over that.