Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

YH8

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

Has Science Proven the Existence of God?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Has Science Proven the Existence of God?

    • 1) Yes.
      4
    • 2) No, but it (science) can/has the ability to.
      6
    • 3) No, and it (science) can't/doesn't have the ability to.
      35
    • 4) I don't know.
      3
    • 5) Other (please explain below).
      4


Recommended Posts

I don't have the time to respond to your post with any detail so I'll comment on a few points and inform you I probably won't be able to reply, though that's not a definite..but I will be away for a few weeks.

M:  But everything you've suggested as to the state of scientific knowledge re god..at this point is pure speculation, nothing more.

D:  No it's not.  Polkinghorne and Barr and Penrose et al really do exist and really do hold the views I've ascribed to them.  There's nothing speculative about what I've said.

But there is speculation about what they say. I read Polkinghorne and essentially he says god's existence is a metaphysical speculation and that there is nothing for science to address with regards to god's existence. I quoted him in a previous post and was critical of things he said...which I addressed in my previous post.

What he did after explaining, how science operates and that belief in god is not something science deals with, was to go on and compare the two, as to which is better. From what I can remember he basically said or implied that theology takes over where religion leaves off...and that theology supplies greater understanding What he meant by the word 'understanding' he didn't explain. But the implication was that theology yields greater knowledge. How can one know if one has greater knowledge if it's based on pure speculation and not evidence?

There seems to be an attempt with religious individuals to either criticize science and claim in someway it is inadequate in comparison to religion or if not then an attempt is made to recognize science for what it offers and to tie religion in with it in an attempt to add credibilty to faith based beliefs. There doesn't seem to be an acknowledgement that science is completely separate, totally independent of religion. Science has no qualms with religion. It doesn't need religion in any way. It is religious individual's who pit religion against science. They either are flat out critical of religion and use the criticism to bolster religion's credibility or they recognize science for what it offers but make note of it's limitations and use that recognized limitation to claim religion superiority or they recognize the value of religion , don't criticize it but still use religion to bolster their faith based beliefs. I don't see religion being presented as standing on its own independent of science...as science does.

Me:In otherwords the scientific evidence is not conclusive that there is design, but even if one were to see any design/apparent order

Share this post


Link to post
But there is speculation about what they say.

Cosmology is positively full of speculation. Stephen Hawking freely admits that he's speculating with his imaginary numbers and his boundaryless universe. It's the nature of the beast.

read Polkinghorne and essentially he says god's existence is a metaphysical speculation and that there is nothing for science to address with regards to god's existence.  I quoted him in a previous post and was critical of things he said...which I addressed in my previous post.

Polkinghorne is not the clearest of the writers I've cited for making my point. Still, you shouldn't imagine that you've mastered his thought with a few desultory glances at a Website.

What he did after explaining,  how science operates and that belief in god is not something science deals with, was to go on and compare the two,  as to which is better.  From what I can remember he basically said or implied that theology takes over where religion leaves off...and that theology supplies greater understanding  What he meant by the word  'understanding' he didn't explain.  But the implication was that theology yields greater knowledge.  How can one know if one has greater knowledge if it's based on pure speculation and not evidence?

None of this has much to do with the very limited little claim that I made so carefully.

There seems to be an attempt with religious individuals to either criticize science and claim  in someway it is  inadequate in comparison to religion or if not then an attempt is made to recognize science for what it offers and to tie religion in with it in an attempt to add credibilty to faith based beliefs.

Incidentally, just in case you've missed it, you should know that Sir John Polkinghorne ranks among the leading particle physicists in the world.

Let's look at this but use witches instead of god.  Someone who believes in witches with special powers, could say the same thing. That science does address the metaphysical speculation of witch's powers and that faith in witches yield them a greater understanding of witches which science could not do and therefore faith/belief  in witches is superior to anything science provides because of the added "understanding" this belief provides.  That's a pile of nonsense,Daniel but that's essentially what Mr. Polkinghorne  said.

No it's not. It must be exhilarating to be able to dismiss one of the leading contemporary thinkers on science and religion after just a few minutes on a Website.

Given the first example I went to I wasn't pleased with the deceptive wording I noticed.  I detest dishonesty and Mr Polkinghorne knew he wasn't being forthright in his choice of words that he was implying Theology lead to knowledge, greater knowledge than does science.  Shame on Mr. Polkinghorne.  I hope your other references have higher moral values.

Oh good grief. First you effectively accused me of dishonesty, and now you've decided to condemn Polkinghorne?

For those who might be curious to know a bit more about Sir John, Fellow of the Royal Society, retired professor of physics at the University of Cambridge [where being a "professor" is like having an endowed chair in the United States], former president of Queens College, Cambridge, now an ordained Anglican minister and Canon Theologian of Liverpool, here's a brief biography of the shamefully dishonest and anti-scientific ignoramus:

http://www.polkinghorne.org/

Share this post


Link to post
I took the effort to look up one. And he was doing what I said. He claimed religion was superior to science by saying one could gain "understanding" with it which they wouldn't get through science.

May I ask why it bothers you that religion may, in point of fact, get something over on science? Why is it that some seem to believe that science must be superior to all other forms of inquiry in all matters? Just curious is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Daniel Peterson - Cosmology is positively full of speculation.

I believe, actually that you are wrong Mr. Peterson............it is more correct to indicate that all of cosmology is speculation. It is rather fun speculation at that I might add.

Share this post


Link to post
Religiously Free - If science has no evidence or no explanation for something hypothesized it doesn't speculate so as to 'fill in the unknown blank' of mankind's understanding.

You are kidding right? Many interpretations of Quantum Physics are completely speculating with no evidence, just suggestions, ideas, possibilities etc. All of it is quite speculatory in nature. There is nothing wrong with that, but your statement is utterly inane when viewed via Quantum Physics. Think String, M-Theory, Many Worlds, etc., and you undoubtedly will see my point.........won't you?

Consider also the recent spate of books on the various speculations of faster than the speed of light travel in the last decade, and what that could [note this speculation!] mean............

Share this post


Link to post
Religiously Free - If science has no evidence or no explanation for something hypothesized it doesn't speculate so as to 'fill in the unknown blank' of mankind's understanding.

You are kidding right? Many interpretations of Quantum Physics are completely speculating with no evidence, just suggestions, ideas, possibilities etc. All of it is quite speculatory in nature. There is nothing wrong with that, but your statement is utterly inane when viewed via Quantum Physics. Think String, M-Theory, Many Worlds, etc., and you undoubtedly will see my point.........won't you?

Consider also the recent spate of books on the various speculations of faster than the speed of light travel in the last decade, and what that could [note this speculation!] mean............

I stand corrected.

Enlighten me here please..are Quantum Physics. Think String, M-Theory..are these considered metaphysical theories? Science deals with speculation at the stages preceding suggesting a theory, but for any accepted scientific theory it must have observational data not be total speculation...do you agree? And although there are speculations the next step is to test and observe results which will either support or r not the speculations..correct? If you don't agree are you taking into consideration metaphysical theories? I'd like you to expand on this, I get the sense you are quite knowledgable in this area. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
I took the effort to look up one. And he was doing what I said. He claimed religion was superior to science by saying one could gain "understanding" with it which they wouldn't get through science.

May I ask why it bothers you that religion may, in point of fact, get something over on science? Why is it that some seem to believe that science must be superior to all other forms of inquiry in all matters? Just curious is all.

I thought I had explained it in previous posts. What you are stating wasn't the problem. I felt Mr. P , sorry don't remember his name was deliberately being deceptive when he claimed that religion was superior to science because it produces greater understanding. I thought the obvious inference meant by the choice of word used 'understanding' was to imply religion produces greater knowledge. I did an analogy and substituted the words witch with god to show how illogical his claim was. I don't mind if in fact he shows legitimately that theology is in some ways better but take exception to word game playing. He in fact did not show theology to be superior in a justified way. And in essence he was pitting religion up against science, which I see no necessity for. The truth of the matter is that the scientific method leads to increases in understanding about the world not theology. Theology simply addresses the emotional aspects of man and whether religion is a benefit to man is debatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Science deals with speculation at the stages preceding suggesting a theory, but for any accepted scientific theory it must have observational data not be total speculation...do you agree?

No, I don't agree, totally. The hows and whys of many facets of Quantum theory are still being speculated about and argued about. How many dimensions exist, etc., in order for String Theory to work, or M-Theory. There is, so far as I am aware, absolutely no observable data for strings, their size, (being immensely smaller than the smallest of the subatomic particles, the quarks) their vibration rates, etc. As far as that goes, we still do not know what gravity is. Is it a force within our universe? Does it work through speculated proposed particles we call "gravitons"? Or is it, as recently proposed, a force leaking into our universe from another dimension?(!), and hence a diluted much stronger force than all our other universal forces we so far know about? It's all speculation without any observable data thus far. And it's quite fun to read up on I might add.

And although there are speculations the next step is to test and observe results which will either support or r not the speculations..correct?

I agree with this as well, though there is simply no physical way we will ever be able to observe strings, and hence cannot gather the ideological "observable data."

If you don't agree are you taking into consideration metaphysical theories?

Metaphysical, by definition is that which is above or else beyond the physical, of which science deals with. Science will not nor cannot, nor need not deal with the metaphysical. Clearly it appears to me, at least, to be in another realm than science. That being said, I am not of the opinion that the metaphysical is therefore useless however, or unreal. It's just not necessarily physical...........but if you really want to get technical, neither are electrons, they being merely waves of potentiality, nothing existing at all. They are claimed to blink in and out of existence, by sheer random distribution, and wave fluctuation, whatever that is!

I'd like you to expand on this, I get the sense you are quite knowledgable in this area. thanks

I enjoy reading science, the scriptures and how the various paradigms work within their own special fields of inquiry, yes.

Share this post


Link to post

Religiously Free -

Theology simply addresses the emotional aspects of man and whether religion is a benefit to man is debatable.

That is an oversimplification of what theology is and does, of course. It is quite seriously debatable about whether science is beneficial to man also. How we describe beneficial is important here. We have the technology, the question is, do we have the wisdom to use it correctly? Theology also works on the morality of man, as Stephen Jay Gould noted in his book "The Rock of Ages" which shows once science has discovered and elaborated on evolution, the scientific arena is useless in answering the questions of morality such as do humans have more value than bacteria, or bugs? When is it ever justified to take another species to extinction, by destroying their existing habitat, etc. These engage different concerns than strictly scientific methods work with. Factual data are meager at working within these parameters, obviously.

And religion obviously does give us much more information on certain ideas than science does. Science simply says if there is no data for God, then we cannot say He/She/It exists. Religion on the other hand, strives to work out the ethical, moral, and sociological relationships of man/woman to man/woman and man/woman to God as well. Factual physical data simply have nothing to contribute to that discussion.

As far as whether religion is beneficial to mankind or not, that is entirely subjective, as is the same with science when scientists choose to observe some aspects of a theory and ignore others, either deliberately or unintentionally. The recent discovery of Chaos is a prime example of scientists who were trained not to see chaos, and therefore, they didn't. But once they observed it, all the sudden entire new fields of science came into play and understanding. That didn't mean chaos was either beneficial or not beneficial all these millenia of our existence, it just means we were not seeing it. Perhaps the exact same thing is true concerning God. If we assume only physical data, we may very well miss entire realms of reality that have nothing to do with the physical.

I might add, as an aside, many scientists have the passionate belief in the non-existence of the soul, though there is no empirical data for such a belief! They think that when you are dead, you are just dead, that's it. It is merely assumed and stated over and over again as if repetition produces fact. It doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Scipture lover....I have some questions still, hope you don't mind. You mentioned that metaphysical, by definition is that which is above or else beyond the physical, of which science deals with. Aren't these theories re string theory, other universes, I don't know what quantum mechanic entails but aren't they metaphysical theories?

You mentioned we still don't know what gravity is. My understanding is that's not what scientific theories are about. The theories don't tell us what something is, they only give a best fit explanation for a problem/question which is noted. Testing and evidence support these proposed theories. Do you disagree?

You also mentioned Quantum theory, is this a widely accepted theory or is it essentially a hypthesis which does not have the evidence to support it such that it's an accepted theory? I've heard it mentioned fairly often ..I should look into it but at present know nothing about it.

At times is the word theory used when in the strict sense of science, the proposals really are speculations with no evidentiary support? i.e. string theory

Share this post


Link to post
You also mentioned Quantum theory, is this a widely accepted theory or is it essentially a hypthesis which does not have the evidence to support it such that it's an accepted theory? I've heard it mentioned fairly often ..I should look into it but at present know nothing about it.

Quantum theory is the most powerfully established and overly tested scientific theory in history, and it has come completely through with flying colors. The problem is, it is truly weird. I mean really way out weird, far stranger than you can imagine. I will post more on this for you another time. There are literally thouands of scientists who have written on and discussed Quantum Theory. It is, indeed, truly something you must look into.

Share this post


Link to post
No it's not clear that any god has left evidences of its existence, if it was clear there'd be almost universal consensus within the scientific community which had found these evidences you suggest. If there was a Holy GHost there would also be universal consensus of evidence on that too by objective observers. Holy ghost and god are theories presented by biased individuals who interpret data to support their beliefs.

The fact that science doesn't disprove something is not evidence that it exists. Science makes observations. Those observations can have different interpretations. When something is clearly accepted there is a high rate of acceptance by all within the scientific community. A theory which is accepted almost as fact has almost universal consensus.

There is no objective evidence of a holy ghost and of (your) god's existence. If anything lack of evidence to support claims of holy ghost and god, support the opposite proposition, that they don't exist.

List some of what these objective verifiable evidences are for god, for holy ghost, if this is so clear to all. When something is clear to all even skeptics don't deny.

Yes it is clear that god has left plenty of evidences of his existance. See how easy it is to argue with someone with your ideology. Plus the original question, I assume was directed to those who are religious, hence the message board your posting on.

No your right there isn't scientific consensus in every aspect of science, but see how many biologists you find religious or not that don't agree with there being evidences of dinosaure bones or the existance of element and gases? Science makes observations that may have different interpratations, but doesn't exclude the fact that they exist, and if not brought about by a supreme being, then what? Accident? :P

Oh and about the skeptics statement: The existance of Gases and element, is that not universally accepted by the scientific community? What evidenced do you have that gases weren't created by a supreme being? As for the holy ghost, thats a faith thing and MUST be a faith thing.

Share this post


Link to post

You see religously free, its not us that have to prove of the existance of what we see around us everyday and of the existance of god, we have given the answers but people like you chose not to accept the answers (I.E. the holy ghost). Its YOU who need to explain to us how everything has come about and WHY. Science can show us HOW god created things, religion tells us WHY they were.

So if you can, tells us why they were created or evolved? Because without religion, your left in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
I felt Mr. P , sorry don't remember his name was deliberately being deceptive when he claimed that religion was superior to science because it produces greater understanding.

The name is Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS. (The latter two abbreviations denote Knight of the British Empire and Fellow of the Royal Society, respectively -- the Royal Society, founded by Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton, being the most elite organization of scientists in the United Kingdom, membership in which is granted to only a relative handful of researchers after a lifetime of accomplishment).

Whether "religiously free" is really religiously free or not, he seems depressingly free with casual charges of dishonesty. The mere fact that someone views something differently than he does seems to be enough to trigger the accusation.

You also mentioned Quantum theory, is this a widely accepted theory or is it essentially a hypthesis which does not have the evidence to support it such that it's an accepted theory? I've heard it mentioned fairly often ..I should look into it but at present know nothing about it.

Incredible. "religiously free" knows "nothing" about quantum theory -- which, along with special and general relativity, constitutes one of the fundamental breakthroughs of twentieth century physics -- yet, having spent a few moments glancing at a Website, he presumes to lecture the eminent quantum physicist Sir John Polkinghorne on science and to denounce Polkinghorne as dishonest? The mind boggles.

Share this post


Link to post

Devin: You see religously free, its not us that have to prove of the existance of what we see around us everyday and of the existance of god, we have given the answers but people like you chose not to accept the answers (I.E. the holy ghost). Its YOU who need to explain to us how everything has come about and WHY. Science can show us HOW god created things, religion tells us WHY they were.

So if you can, tells us why they were created or evolved? Because without religion, your left in the dark.

No you have not given me any answers Devin. If I don't understand something I'm quite content to acknowledge that. If I'm aware that science doesn't have answers I'm also quite content. It does not bother me in the least to say 'I don't know or "feel I don't know". I don't get satisfaction out of creating an answer just because I don't happen to have one. Speculating is fine, that's creative thinking but claiming to know something without verifiable support is not productive thinking, it's not thinking at all. And following others or authority without question is 'not thinking'.

Relgion does not explain "why" with truth and understanding..religion only makes guesses but claims it knows. If my kids come to me with a question about electricity and I make something up, my kids will not have greater awareness, knowledge, truth if anything not only will they not understand electricity but they assume they do and stop trying to understand it. Religion in claiming absolute truth takes an arrogant position in doing so. Faith is not an arrogant position ..but claiming truth without any evidence is arrogant. And a problem with claiming truths is that it is a closed minded attitude, a frame of mind which is not open to new information.

Share this post


Link to post
Aren't these theories re string theory, other universes, I don't know what quantum mechanic entails but aren't they metaphysical theories?

Am curious about your background in science and theology (not religion). From your comments about your background it appears you are uneducated in both, at least to any signficant degree. If this is so, I am wondering why you feel so comfortable about making dogmatic statements about what each entails.

I'd suggest a philosophy of science class/text followed by a philosophy of religion one.

Share this post


Link to post
claiming to know something without verifiable support  is not productive thinking, it's not thinking at all.

How very, very true.

Share this post


Link to post
If I don't understand something I'm quite content to acknowledge that. If I'm aware that science doesn't have answers I'm also quite content. It does not bother me in the least to say 'I don't know or "feel I don't know". I don't get satisfaction out of creating an answer just because I don't happen to have one. Speculating is fine, that's creative thinking but claiming to know something without verifiable support is not productive thinking, it's not thinking at all. And following others or authority without question is 'not thinking'.

Relgion does not explain "why" with truth and understanding..religion only makes guesses but claims it knows. If my kids come to me with a question about electricity and I make something up, my kids will not have greater awareness, knowledge, truth if anything not only will they not understand electricity but they assume they do and stop trying to understand it. Religion in claiming absolute truth takes an arrogant position in doing so. Faith is not an arrogant position ..but claiming truth without any evidence is arrogant. And a problem with claiming truths is that it is a closed minded attitude, a frame of mind which is not open to new information.

Good stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
M: I felt Mr. P , sorry don't remember his name was deliberately being deceptive when he claimed that religion was superior to science because it produces greater understanding.

Daniel:  The name is Rev. Dr. Sir John Polkinghorne, KBE, FRS. (The latter two abbreviations denote Knight of the British Empire and Fellow of the Royal Society, respectively -- the Royal Society, founded by Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton, being the most elite organization of scientists in the United Kingdom, membership in which is granted to only a relative handful of researchers after a lifetime of accomplishment).

I addressed what he wrote and I noticed he was deliberately deceptive by his choice of words and I explained. An extremely intellgent person can be deliberately deceptive. No where did I say his knowledge of science was lacking. I think he has an excellent understanding of science. I just think his pro- religious bias zeal is what may have led him to essentially play word games, use words in a misleading way. He's actually using his intellect in doing so.

Daniel: Whether "religiously free" is really religiously free or not, he seems depressingly free with casual charges of dishonesty. The mere fact that someone views something differently than he does seems to be enough to trigger the accusation.

I dealt with Mr. Polkinghorne's words and explained how his choice of words was deliberately deceptive. Attacking me doesn't change his words. If you want to communicate with me honestly..then address the substance of what I said. I notice you too play games in discussions and frankly I'm not particularly interested in discussions such as this, they are mental gymnastics which go nowhere...a complete and utter waste of time.

Me:  You also mentioned Quantum theory, is this a widely accepted theory or is it essentially a hypthesis which does not have the evidence to support it such that it's an accepted theory? I've heard it mentioned fairly often ..I should look into it but at present know nothing about it.

D:  Incredible. "religiously free" knows "nothing" about quantum theory -- which, along with special and general relativity, constitutes one of the fundamental breakthroughs of twentieth century physics -- yet, having spent a few moments glancing at a Website, he presumes to lecture the eminent quantum physicist Sir John Polkinghorne on science and to denounce Polkinghorne as dishonest? The mind boggles.

Is this how you get your jollies Daniel? Trying to show how intellectually superior you are and using words as weapons to destroy rather than to communicate? Anyhow yes I don't know Quantum theory..heck there's a hell of a lot I don't know. But I never said Mr. Polkinghorne was deficient in his knowledge of science. Daniel I think we should do each other a favor and not discuss with each other, we seem to be too antagonistic which is fine if there is a sincere wish to communicate honestly but I don't get that sense when talking with you. Thanks for giving me those names, I'll try and look into them. Mr. Polkinghorne was a disappointment in the sense I didn't think given his intelligence he was honest. What I respect the most coming from someone is honesty. I don't care if they have totally different views than me. Or they are extremely religious and I'm not but I can't stand deceptive type game playing. I can't stand people using logic to win an argument or make a point when it is obvious to me they are deliberately using fallacies or being misleading by choice of words. The other night I read something by D. Oakes, sorry I'm not sure if that's the correct spelling and I saw so many fallacies. It has to do with the historicity in the BOM. I don't care how well he may be respected within the church or how intelligent he is or what his position is, but no one could have written would he did without knowing full well he was being deliberately deceptive. If you would like I will put that up on here some day. Not today because I don't have the time to address it. Of course on second that if you like him will only end up playing deceptive games, there isn't much point.

BTw as far as myself I'm a she and I've had virtually no exposure to religion my entire life. That may be unbelievable to you but that is true. Practically all my exposure has been via the internet in the last few years. So along with learning about religion and mormonism has been my main interest up until now, I'm seeing how religious individuals respond to questions, how honest they are in their responses. What I'm finding and I've been on other boards is that the majority of intelligent religious individuals, the ones who can think very logically are typically evasive and frankly dishonest in their responses. That's what I keep seeing time and again. And that is why I'm quick to notice it when I see it.

Share this post


Link to post
I addressed what he wrote and I noticed he was deliberately deceptive by his choice of words and I explained.
And this perception is why you need some reading in the philosophy of science and religion.

I wouldn't label the Internet as a rigorous environment to study about anything. It can be a great resource, but as the foundation of a study--woefully lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Me:  Aren't these theories re string theory, other universes, I don't know what quantum mechanic entails but aren't they metaphysical theories?

calmoriah:  Am curious about your background in science and theology (not religion). From your comments about your background it appears you are uneducated in both, at least to any signficant degree. If this is so, I am wondering why you feel so comfortable about making dogmatic statements about what each entails.

I'd suggest a philosophy of science class/text followed by a philosophy of religion one.

My comment about science have been about process, my understanding of the scientific method process...not about particular theories. My comments about Mr. Polkinghorne were not about his particular religious beliefs or his scientific knowledge. He presented an argument as to why religion offered more than science but did so in a way which was clear that he claimed religion to be superior. I disagreed with his reasoning, his justification and his method. I attacked his character because I felt given his intelligence he knew exactly what he was doing and that he had resorted to playing word games to make his argument.

If you noticed my understanding is incorrect, then explain. I also have an interest in logic. I also am truly religiously free, never been indoctrinated with religion, had virtually no exposure in school, no family or relatives tied in with any religion. So I have a unique perspective and little emotional baggage while looking at it. I'm in a process of learning and do not claim to know various scientific theories, be an expert on religion or an expert on mormonism. In my discussions I don't claim to know that which I don't. In fact I typically add a note when I mention something I don't have much knowledge on.

Share this post


Link to post
my understanding of the scientific method process...
Your understanding is very incomplete based on the assumptions, inferences and conclusions you are making; that is why I think you could benefit from a class/text on the philosophy of science.

It is not something that can be learned by reading a couple of sentences. It is naive to think that knowledge can be anything but superficial when approached in a superficial way (ie. internet study).

little emotional baggage while looking at it
I would disagree with this self-analysis. You, IMO, have significant emotional baggage attached to the global idea of religion by the way you summarily dismiss Dr. Polkinghorne's comments as being dishonest. Only someone very emotionally invested in their personal paradigm is so quick to judgment in my experience. One does not have to be exposed to something in order to acquire baggage, in fact this can actually increase probabilty of it happening as should be obvious from the history of racism.

Share this post


Link to post
me:  my understanding of the scientific method process...

C:  Your understanding is very incomplete based on the assumptions, inferences and conclusions you are making; that is why I think you could benefit from a class/text on the philosophy of science.

It is not something that can be learned by reading a couple of sentences. It is naive to think that knowledge can be anything but superficial when approached in a superficial way (ie. internet study).

I agree I don't think knowledge comes from reading only the internet, nor did I ever say I don't read elsewhere. But my interest to this point is not in understanding particular scientific theories nor have I claimed knowledge of any. And my discussions haven't dealt with that either.

M: little emotional baggage while looking at it

C:  I would disagree with this self-analysis. You, IMO, have significant emotional baggage attached to the idea of religion by the way you summarily dismiss Dr. Polkinghorne's comments as being dishonest. Only someone very emotionally invested in their personal paradigm is so quick to judgment in my experience.

I think you are the one with the baggage And here is why, rather than address what I actually have said, the argument I made your argument is essentially that I can't notice when Mr. Polkinghorne is being dishonest because I haven't taken certain courses you deem necessary. You've given no support to your argument so why would you do this. Because Mr. Polkinghorne is pro religion and so are you. Mr. Polkinghorne unfortunately in his religious zeal pits religion up against science ..insteading of presenting religion on it's own and letting it stand on it's own merit.

Share this post


Link to post

I am responding to your comments about being open and willing to admit when you don't know something. I am merely pointing out gaps in your knowledge that you should explore before drawing the types conclusions you are doing here.

You are missing some fundamental understanding. Understanding that can only come with more rigorous study than you have stated yourself that you have as yet undertaken. You are making premature judgments, pretty signficant ones when you call a renowned scientist dishonest. I would think you would stop and think twice and ask 'what am I missing here' before so casually dismissing him.

your argument is essentially that I can't notice when Mr. Polkinghorne is being dishonest because I haven't taken certain courses you deem necessary
You have misread my comments, further evidence that you lack a fundamental grounding in this area.
It's obvious you have an agenda of trying to put me down rather than discuss the actual substance of the issue I presented.
I'm not trying to put you down. You have ventured into an area that not many people have taken the time to educate themselves in. Pointing out a lack of knowledge in this area is no more 'putting you down' then making an observation that you lack knowledge in the field of medicine or economics. That emotional reaction to my comments rather than a simple acknowledgment that you are lacking in knowledge in this area and probably should do some more studying before making such sweeping conclusions is rather indicative, wouldn't you say?

When the substance of your comments are your personal opinons, pointing out where you are lacking in knowledge and therefore lacking in wellinformed opinoins is addressing the substance of your comments.

When someone is making assumptions and drawing conclusions from incomplete information, pointing out that their information is incomplete is dealing with the substance or rather lack of substance in their discussion. The problem here is that you aren't even apparently aware of what is missing because you don't have enough grounding in the field to be able to evaluate your own understanding.

It is not a particular scientific theory I think you are lacking in, but in the theory of science--thus a class/text in the philosophy of science. If you want to discuss philosophy, you need to have some fundamental grounding in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...