Hail, Oh Infallible Science!

Originally posted by dottewell
So you only ever take an aspirin if God tells you to?

I'm not overlooking anything. If you see science as revelation about the workings of the physical universe - whether this revelation is attributable to god or man - then you should celebrate science and enjoy its fruits.

I do celebrate science. The difference between you and I, however, is that I give God the credit and you don't. What many of these scientists don't realilze is that they were given God-given abilities and insight which inable them to discover scientific break-throughs. You then give them the credit which only helps to further inflate their often times over inflated egos. What I enjoy is when some scientific maverich who has no ego to bruise providing a needle prick to help deflate their over inflated opinions of themselves.

Originally posted by whodey
What I enjoy is when some scientific maverich who has no ego to bruise providing a needle prick to help deflate their over inflated opinions of themselves.

What I enjoy is hearing that a highly-skilled surgeon has saved the life of someone's child using the acquired knowledge of scientists across many decades and centuries.

Give credit to god if you want; give credit to the scientists, and their free choice to try to work out the mysteries of the universe, too.

It's nice to know that if an atheist doctor saved the life of one of your loved ones you'd be more inclined to "prick his ego" rather than shake his hand and thank him from the bottom of your heart.

Originally posted by whodey
I do celebrate science. The difference between you and I, however, is that I give God the credit and you don't. What many of these scientists don't realilze is that they were given God-given abilities and insight which inable them to discover scientific break-throughs. You then give them the credit which only helps to further inflate their often times over ...[text shortened]... to bruise providing a needle prick to help deflate their over inflated opinions of themselves.

Why do you feel the need to degrade the work of others?

Originally posted by whodey
I do celebrate science. The difference between you and I, however, is that I give God the credit and you don't. What many of these scientists don't realilze is that they were given God-given abilities and insight which inable them to discover scientific break-throughs. You then give them the credit which only helps to further inflate their often times over ...[text shortened]... to bruise providing a needle prick to help deflate their over inflated opinions of themselves.

you say that scientists don't realise that they made these discoveries using 'god-given' abilities (there very existance for one), but that is only what you beleive. you can't prove it and the majority of scientists (the ones we are talking about at any rate) don't beleive in a god. it's not that scientists don't realise the abilities they use were given by god. but they don't beleive in god at all. I would also add that of the many scientists I know the masive majority do not have vast egos, and mavarics usually have huge egos. science does not happen the way it does in films in the real world. and the vast majority of scientific progress is not made by mavarics. crediting god with the triumfs of man cheapens them. by all means say you beleive that we were created by god and our acheivements reflect on his/her/its skill. but please don't imply that scientists don't realise this 'fact' out of ignorance, this 'fact' is part of your beleifs not ours.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Finally, someone who has the honesty to take the argument.

[b]Why not?
Because of its limitations. Science is a growing field, with literally no end in sight. As such, it can only offer what we have discovered, nothing more. A dog will lap up the sweet liquid of antifreeze, with nary a thought to the fact that it will shortly be taking his life. ...[text shortened]... the meaning and even the words of the Bible to their own harm, but the Bible remains constant.[/b]

By faith we know that God created the heavens and the earth, and by faith, we know that our separation from God has been resolved. While that faith has virtually nothing to say about the moons of Pluto (and precious little else to say about the remaining physical world), faith nonetheless has much to say about the most impactful things possible, i.e., the eternal status of our souls.

"Faith" has been consistently shown to lead to wrong conclusions, however. For example, "faith" said that the Sun and the planets all revolved around the Earth. In addition, "faith" is inflexible, without allowing any objective evidence to verify or disprove it's conclusions. For those who allow their "faith" to be modified by objective evidence - they are using science, not "faith". People with "faith" often disagree with people with different "faith" and there is nothing that can be done to show which is correct. If there were, it would be science.

To date, science has revealed (that word is carefully chosen)

Interesting. Why is that word so significant?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why do you feel the need to degrade the work of others?

that too. one thing I can never do, the short and snapy response. 🙂

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Science is limited in what way, exactly?
Understanding has only progressed so far, thus limited.

Do you have any way of claiming that science can't truly answer all questions (eventually) without basically using "because it can't" as an answer?
Science can only respond to the general revelation. And, as stated, that response is limited by ...[text shortened]... lation? You'll need to be clearer on this one prior to me shouting, "horse excrement."[/b]

Understanding has only progressed so far, thus limited.

So it's temporally limited. No argument there.

Science can only respond to the general revelation. And, as stated, that response is limited by our sight.

What does that mean?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Apologies for the late response, but [b]that science is called theology. It is the premier branch of all sciences.

Religion is not part of my faith. As part of my natural studies, however, it has taught me nothing of the rings of Saturn, but very much about the mind of man.[/b]

Theology is not science.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Religion, yes. Science, yes. Christianity, no.

Christianity, yes.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hey, twhitehead, here's a thought-bearing activity for you: do a word search on the suffix 'ology' or 'logy,' and see what it yields.

"dull and heavy," 1848, Amer.Eng., perhaps from Du. log "heavy, dull."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=logy&searchmode=none

😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Note that I did not write 'religion-ology,' but, rather, 'theology,' or, the study of God.

So is Muffyology a science? How about FSMology? How about pootology?

Originally posted by googlefudge
There is no empirical evidence at all for the existence of any deity/supernatural entities whatsoever. In fact the very existence of beings with the kind of abilities you (religion in general not necessarily you personally) attribute to a god make a mockery of the very idea of science. Let me explain.
A certain Greek philosopher came up with hypothetica ...[text shortened]... in the time of Shakespeare no one had fixed spelling and he got on just fine 😛

Excellent post. One error however; Cartesian relates to Descartes, who was French. Wasn't he?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Christianity, yes.

I think that Christianity has just taken this rationale to such an extreme that nothing can change now. Having said that, there are so many interpretations of the bible by different groups.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Religion, yes. Science, yes. Christianity, no.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Christianity, yes.

point of information.
Christianity is a lable for a large plethora of religions. referring to 'christianity' is like referring to 'western civilisation', there are similarities between the western nations, but confuse a french citizen with a british one and see how much stick you get. (confusing an American with a Canadian will also not make you very popular). and just because you happen to belong to one of the many Christian religions doesn't make Christianity any more or less bound by the same falacies as any other religion (from the point of veiw of an athiest/agnostic person). Christianity isn't any more special than any other religion, although in totality it may be more popular.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Hey, twhitehead, here's a thought-bearing activity for you: do a word search on the suffix 'ology' or 'logy,' and see what it yields.

But the degree a scientist gets is a "Doctor of Philosophy". It's a "sophy" not an "ology".