Welcome to Cutting Edge. Guests can see and read the contents of most of the boards on this forum but need to become members to read all of them. Currently membership is instant, but new accounts may be deleted if not activated within fourteen days.

If you decide to join the forum, please open your welcome message for further details. New members are requested to introduce themselves on the appropriate thread on our welcome board.

Members may post messages and start threads, but it is essential that they read our posting rules and advice before doing so. If you have any immediate questions or queries, please post them on the suggestions board.

After posting at least ten messages, members are able to contact each other and the staff through our personal messaging system.

This forum is administrated by Ivan and moonbeam and moderated by boatlady and astradt1.

Thank you for visiting Cutting Edge.

Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Page 16 of 20 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down


Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:54 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Jus read Descartes opinion on certainty.,


polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Tue Nov 24, 2015 11:57 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Which part of evolution explains the origin of life? which is the main problem.

Evolution is just an animal or plant already created adapting to changed circumstances as evolutiuon so clearly explains.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:17 pm

Read it yourself, I'm way past trying to impart anything to someone as arrogantly certain as you,  whose sole intent is sententious & enfless self righteous preaching with idiotic disjointed rants.

The simple fact is that absolute certainty proves nothing, any lunatic asylum will provide a rich vein of this kind of "knowlege". Scientific knowledge is able to advance and learn precisely because it never ignores new evidence in favour of dogma. Which is why religions have had to make such embarrassing u turns on things like a geocentric universe and evolution and young earth creationism, whilst science simply incorporates new knowledge and expands on it. 

The very fact you can claim 100%certainty speaks for itself, especially alongside claims like the ones you made that humans share 90% of their DNA with bananas, and evolved from monkeys. 

You ought really to hold off denying a vast scientific explanation like evolution until you've at least understood some of it beyond a level that would embarrass a primary school science student.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:30 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Which part of evolution explains the origin of life? which is the main problem.
None of it, as you've been told innumerable times before. Evolution does not and never has made any claims about the origins of life, any more than it posits a creator. If you learn nothing else ffs learn this simple fact. There is no evidence for creation or a creator. What's more your own chosen creation myth is entirely at odds with evidence from almost every major field of science. Even as the allegory science has inevitably reduced it to, it is irrational, illogical, errant nonsense. 

Nonsense incidentally that claims humans were made in one go instantly from clay, so just which part of evolution does that match? 

Now you can regurgitate your god of the gaps polemic again.....off you go.....
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Part 1

Post by Jsmythe on Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:17 pm

Hello Dr. Shedon,





No, but of course that argument could be applied in just the same fashion to unicorns. My apologies if that seems a little flippant, but this strikes me as reversing the burden of proof, and I am not immune to using hyperbole. I recently heard a very good explanation of the atheist position as it applies here as an analogous comparison with a juror assessing the guilt of a defendant.

The juror doesn't have to find the defendant innocent, indeed that is usually impossible, they only have to determine if guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So a juror on hearing and examining all the evidence  either accepts the guilt or rejects it, no decision is necessary as to the defendants innocence.

So it with atheism, I don't need to know there is no god, and I certainly don't need to prove it, or for that matter evidence it. Any more than I would have to for unicorns, if someone claimed they existed, which the bible does by the way. Now if someone claims a god exist then the onus is on them to define what a deity is and then evidence it. I am free to decide of they have done so, but need not decide if a deity may exist or show evidence that it doesn't.

Indeed we could apply this to unicorns.Fortunately we know the origins of unicorns so we can just cross it off the 'possible miracles' list. The 'burden of proof' is a  winner and I know is a great mountain to climb for religious folk. Like your analogy in court ; the poor believer has no representative to make his case. If by himself - he would be incapable to give a scientific explanation for what he believes there to be. I would if I could whisper in his ear;"Don't mention the voice you heard or the visions in your dreams." Instead there will be no scientific answer.What is expected from the believer is an argumentative lost cause.

For the sake of science and the curiousity of seeking for new  knowledge,Would it not be better for Atheists to act as scientists to at least produce experiments to take the challenge or at least   prove otherwise. To put it to bed!  To make it a fact! End the great debate! Although I dare say 'The method to measure an unknown has still not yet been devised.' Lack of trying perhaps?This of course is not a good fair use for an argument,but no doubt  Atheists must find it difficult to take this on board,as difficult as it is for believers with the 'Burden of proof.'
We will get no where.





I think you mean atheists not evolutionists, but I'd content this to be honest. You see when a theist makes claims for the characteristic of their god which either are contradicted by the evidence or are logical dichotomies, then it's perfectly reasonably to infer things from this. I wasn't anthropomorphising the Christian deity when like Epicurus I pointed out that it's a logical contradiction to claim a being is omnipotent and omni-benevolent in a world with ubiquitous suffering. In fact I might expect such fallibility from humans, but I absolutely would not expect it from such a being as Polyglide and traditional Christianity has described. You see a being either exists with limitless benevolence or it does not, a being either exists with omnipotence or it does not, so all we need do is ask if it is logical for a being that has limitless power and choice and limitless benevolence to allow untold suffering, let alone cause it. The fact that a human wouldn't do so merely strengthens the case against the existence of such a being.

Apologies you are correct ,I did mean Atheists . I hear the term Creationist V Evolutionists everywhere. Yes from the angle of suffering .A moral man who loves nature and all its creatures watches the animals in their natural habitat.He may come a cross a lion chasing a zebra. This is a moral  man that has superior intellect to the animals by comparison  yet he would still allow the zebra to be killed and not interfere with the lions prize. Unless the zebra was the last of its species.  

Or perhaps a linitless being ( imaginative theory ) could be made that the aim is simply the continuation of life regardless of how many species come or go,as shown of earths history. Obviously not the same religious belief of God as we know, but this God is not so directly involved with humans. We can ship shape the characteristics for any design for God. No one has any idea.There is no case to argue for or against a God in this particular. I don't know  and it seems like Atheists and Creationists have a lot more in common than they realize in the argument here.  

We have a complete fossil record for the evolution of the horse spanning 50+ million years, with a fossil for each intermediate stage.
LINK
LINK
LINKI'm not sure how you think this doesn't represent the evidence you're saying doesn't exist? Of course humans live just a few decades, so we can't witness species change, despite what Polyglide has claimed. That however is testable empirical evidence.

I understand completely what  the implications could be by these findings and why one would think so.


I am needed but I have read your post and will check the links to further reply with the rest.

Cheers for now
Im off
avatar
Jsmythe

Posts : 139
Join date : 2011-10-09
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 2:25 pm

Hi J. 

In the courtroom analogy the theist is represented by the prosecution, on whom the burden of evidence entirely rests. 

The lion analogy has a flaw for me, namely that the man watching is just that, a man. A watching deity with omnipotence has limitless choice and could simply remove predation and suffering by will instantly, whereas a the best a human could hope to do would be to sacrifice one animal to save the other. 

I seldom contemplate the numinous if I'm honest. Perhaps it's a psychological characteristic some humans lack that leads to atheism,  but I'm dubious. I suspect the more critically and rigorously you subject something to objective scrutiny the more it unravels without fairly compelling evidence to support it. I don't think debate will ever end religious belief,  and I'm not sure I'd want to rob people of it either.  Many people lead happier more contented lives because of it, and as long as they don't deal in bigotry and prejudice or try to use absolutes to force others how to live or what to think then perhaps they should be left alone in their belief. Separating religion entirely from the apparatus of state would be as far as I'd be prepared to go.

Thanks for the response.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:50 pm

polyglide wrote:
marcolucco,
               As I have tried to explain to Dr, Sheldon the expression 100% certainty is used by millions of people to express their utter conviction of something, THEIR, and nothing else.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Your ignorance of epistemological philosophy is the only thing that is 100%. Using a common logical fallacy like argumentum ad populum won't help either.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, Do you realy not see the stupidity of the above statement?.

All irony aside, no I really (with two l's) don't, care to share your sagacity with the rest of us? Or does your sage like intellect only extend to hurling the insult, but is not quite up to the job of attempting to justify or evidence it?


Last edited by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:59 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,  There is no possibility that you can get something from nothing
No possibility? Really? How exactly do you claim to be able to evidence this to such an absolute certainty? Did you manage to test 'nothing'? I wasn't aware that we could have 'nothing' to enable us to test it, it appears Polygide is at the cutting edge of physics, can you link the scientific paper you've produced on this paradigm shifting experiment?

Polyglide wrote:so everything must have been created by one means or another or nothing realy exists.
So God was created? What created God? Come to that what created whatever created God? Now I think of it what created what created what created God? Are you sensing any problems with your absurdly strident claim yet?

Polyglide wrote:As I have said many times, just consider all the implications regarding the complexity of all forms of life and it would be difficult if not impossible to put foreward any reasonable explanation that did not include intelligence being involved.
 
Evolution explains the complexity of life, and is evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt. What you're talking about is abiogenesis which is nothing to do with evolution, as I believe you've been told, and making wild subjective assumptions with no evidence, based solely on bronze age creation myths is hardly reasonable or even rational by any measurable standard. Each time you roll out this guff I'll be forced to point it nothing more than the common logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, and repetition doesn't validate it, it just makes you look very desperate.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:21 pm

               " Firstly I would ask your indulgence for my spelling and other grammatical errors" ...... I have no problem whatsoever with this, polyglide. I would spar grammatically only with those who are aggressive and pushy - which you are not.

As a mathematician I was astonished when I first found a link between odd numbers and the number pi (Gregory's series). Surprising too is the fact that when you set a pendulum in motion you can depict its movement by using sines and cosines, and set up an equation which, to common sense, has no answer. But by inventing imaginary numbers, the solution is beautiful.

It is seductive to look at "design" in nature and conclude a "Designer"; for our human minds work through common sense first. But unfortunately, at the limits of knowledge, this common sense approach does not hold true.

If we had a billion billion billion trials and only one of them led to order, then we might say that order isn't possible. Again, this is true, following common sense. But if over a vast time scale you could exhaust all those possibilities, then the good outcome would give the requirements to set forth an ordered sequence and evolution takes over the story.

But I think it is rather naïve to set off in search of God, turn over a few stones, detect ants and shout eureka. Our ignorance is greater than our wisdom and we are employing our IGNORANCE to make conclusions about origins and God. Our earliest ancestors thought along those same lines, and saw in sunlight a producer, in darkness a producer, in growing crops a producer and so on. This is the same common sense that you use with the butterfly. Are there places where common sense does not work? Yes! That being so, why should we rely on it to make conclusions about an existence that is far beyond our own?
               
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Tue Nov 24, 2015 6:38 pm

polyglide wrote:
                Take the dinosaurs as an example, the last one recorded is said to have been 60 meters long and weigh 90 tons.
Along with many other species of animal life that at face value does not fit in with the Bible explanation of creation.
               As an enquiring teenager I attended lectures by a Jesuit whose theme was creation. Genesis he regarded as a poem or a metaphor. This leaves umpteen possibilities of belief open. If we believe a creator started things off, then he may have allowed things to go forth and multiply as they saw fit. Free will would be a characteristic of this laissez faire approach. I don't take this line but were I a believer it would suit me.
             
                                     
polyglide wrote:Is there a stage where all the animal life as we know it appeared at once?

And vanished, and re-appeared? I think the evolution theory is more sensible. If we have a very strict adherence to biblical details we get hopelessly lost. The divisions of creation given in Genesis would have God working in the dark - and was he IN creation or OUTSIDE of it? The prominence given to planet Earth is silly and caused the deaths of many scientists who felt the sun was a bigger deal than our planet. Biblical teaching and Koranic lore so obviously have their origins in the minds of men that the best we can say is they are inspired pieces of poetry. David's lament for Jonathan is one of the most beautiful pieces of poetry I know.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:15 pm

Citing God as an explanation is not really an explanation for anything, unless of course one can define accurately and evidence God. I find it is intellectually lazy. This of course is not to suggest all theists succumb to this 'lacklustre bluster' approach, as many great minds have sought to explain the inscrutable. However I feel it is a fruitless exercise to try and understand or explain what we can never evidence objectively, imagine what such minds as Aquinas and Descartes might have achieved with modern science as their servant....
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Tue Nov 24, 2015 8:24 pm

DSC wrote:Citing God as an explanation is not really an explanation for anything,



It may not be a satisfying explanation but it is an explanation. It is rather nice to think that The Sun God drives his horses through the daytime sky and Phaethon, his son, scorched the Earth when he tried to take the reins. These are explanations - Ovid's Metamorphoses provides wonderful explanations too but he didn't believe them.

Giving people hope, purpose and credible explanations is a long-term aim for man and eventually we will put aside our witch doctors, our Imams and all the others who profit from our gullibility. I think that there will be a lot of bloodshed before then and God will still be asleep. Best regards.

avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:42 pm

marcolucco wrote:we will put aside our witch doctors, our Imams and all the others who profit from our gullibility. I think that there will be a lot of bloodshed before then and God will still be asleep. Best regards.

I tend to agree, though when I said it was not an explanation what I meant was that it offered no explanation beyond a simple unevidenced claim, like "Turtles all the way down".
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:03 am


DSC wrote:I tend to agree, though when I said it was not an explanation what I meant was that it offered no explanation beyond a simple unevidenced claim, like "Turtles all the way down".

Far be it from me to act as counsel for God's disciples but I would suggest that those who accept God's existence are often convinced by the evidence of their eyes and brains. Flew, once an enthusiastic atheist and intelligent scourge of God, was persuaded by the demonstration of statistical theory that a friend offered him. It was not a case of someone being overawed by the mighty; his conversion (to me) seemed honest. That you and I find the evidence unconvincing does not mean we have been offered no evidence.
That said, we can walk on together, my friend.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:41 am

marcolucco,
To addresss the question I feel one must appreciate what a Christian actually believes.

I believe that Satan is in control of the world at the present time and several Biblical passages clearly indicate this and as a well read person I am sure I do not have to point them out.

God will only interefere if Satan goes beyond what is included in their agreement and will and has taken steps to protect his people when under threat, some of these appear drastic to us but who are we to judge the actions of God?.

This is the basis of why I do not accept that God is in any way not a loving and caring God I would do exactly the same to protect my children.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:07 pm


       
polyglide wrote: I believe that Satan is in control of the world at the present time and several Biblical passages clearly indicate this and as a well read person I am sure I do not have to point them out.

                God will only interfere if Satan goes beyond what is included in their agreement and will and has taken steps to protect his people when under threat, some of these appear drastic to us but who are we to judge the actions of God?.

                This is the basis of why I do not accept that God is in any way not a loving and caring God I would do exactly the same to protect my children.

If we accept that Satan represents Evil, then one is at a loss to see why a loving God, who has the power to destroy evil, would come to some entente with an evil being. You say you would do exactly the same, as a loving parent. You would do no such thing - you would not, for example, allow abusers to be in control in any way and intervene only when the abuser did too much abusing of your children.

I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury felt a dent in his faith when he read about the Paris atrocities, done in God's name. If you were a parent and someone committed an atrocity in your name would you remain silent? Would you not correct the wrong impression, for in not correcting you appear to be saying that those who shout "God is great" have God's support. Do we have to wait for the end of time to get answers?

And if you want to continue with your analogy of a loving parent, let's look at God and his "Son". Would a loving parent willingly offer his boy to be tortured and let him cry despairingly: Why have you forsaken me? - to demonstrate not power, but LOVE? , the object of the Passion being the ""redemption" of humankind. But all the terms of reference reside with the Father; he it was who planted the Garden; he it was who introduced the "serpent" ( would a loving father do this?); he it was who got cosmically offended over some childish piece of disobedience.

You say you don't believe in eternal punishment, but I'm afraid that is part of Christian teaching. Islam is more graphic in its descriptions of the afterlife torture that awaits the unbeliever but it has derived its tenets from Judaism and Christianity, probably mixing up a few ideas or adjusting others (such as the Virgin birth of Christ) to suit Arabic tastes. Eternal torment is not something we associate with a loving father. Go well.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:58 pm

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
                To address the question I feel one must appreciate what a Christian actually believes. 

No you don't, this is just another appallingly clumsy attempt to pretend you're addressing the topic so you can hijack it to preach your beliefs again. To address the question I feel one must show objective evidence to validate the premise that religious claims can in any way challenge scientific facts. Give it a try...
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Jsmythe on Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:00 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

I seldom contemplate the numinous if I'm honest. Perhaps it's a psychological characteristic some humans lack that leads to atheism,  but I'm dubious. I suspect the more critically and rigorously you subject something to objective scrutiny the more it unravels without fairly compelling evidence to support it. I don't think debate will ever end religious belief,  and I'm not sure I'd want to rob people of it either.  Many people lead happier more contented lives because of it, and as long as they don't deal in bigotry and prejudice or try to use absolutes to force others how to live or what to think then perhaps they should be left alone in their belief. Separating religion entirely from the apparatus of state would be as far as I'd be prepared to go.

Thanks for the response.


Hello Dr. Sheldon,
You are a decent fellow and I sort of go along with some of the things you say. I wont bother you with the 2nd part or spoil the flow of the thread.

Best wishes
J
avatar
Jsmythe

Posts : 139
Join date : 2011-10-09
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Thu Nov 26, 2015 9:40 am


DSC wrote:so you can hijack it to preach your beliefs again. To address the question I feel one must show objective evidence to validate the premise that religious claims can in any way challenge scientific facts.

Please let polyglide give his views, DSC. I am happy to invite Jehovah's Witnesses in to discuss their faith with me. I live in hope that my citadel will be stormed by the unexpectedness of new truth.

So-called Muslim 'scholars' have taken great pains to find "amazing" pieces of modern science in the Koran, such as the word for the first blob of matter that initiated life. Astoundingly Muhammad wrote about subjects uncovered only in the 20th century. Saudi Arabia, in a disinterested way, has financed scientific (Muslim) research to throw light on the science hidden in the arcana of the Koran. Exciting times. I think the best Christians can do is to say that primordial soup is sort of mentioned in Genesis.
But it would be interesting to have our smug certainty blown away in mysterious ways. I look forward to that.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:15 am

Hi M. 


I wasn't for a minute suggesting Polyglide not express his views.  I have taken the trouble to read them all and respond as expansively as my limited knowledge allows. 

What I was objecting to is the fashion in which he hijacks thread topics to preach unrelated beliefs.  

However I certainly will allow you to respond in person, my apologies if my post seemed intrusive.  I wish you luck, and look forward to your input.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:18 am

[size=49]But it would be interesting to have our smug certainty blown away in mysterious ways. I look forward to that[/size]
I'm not sure either of us is being intentionally smug, or certain. Though I concur with the sentiment. Unfortunately I am dubious about the kind of "scientific methods" they might employ, being all too familiar with christian creationist propaganda that is masquerading as science. Still science's strength is relentless and objective scrutiny, so bring it on. I look forward to worthy Saudi scientific journals offering peer reviewed papers on flying horses. 

As you know pigs are persona non grata....
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:27 pm

"However I certainly will allow you to respond in person, my apologies if my post seemed intrusive.  I wish you luck, and look forward to your input"

Your post wasn't in the slightest intrusive and I was being jocular, not dictatorial.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:06 am

Ah, in that case I apologise for mis-laying my sense of humor.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:41 am

Perhaps I should re-invent mine. Until recently I didn't regard discussion here as a life-threatening activity.

We could do with more God helpers here; if he works in mysterious ways he should by this time have found a few Pauls on the road to Damascus to bring light to our darkness.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:08 am

marcolucco,
I take note of your comments and at face value they can be used as a means of discrediting God and his intentions and this I do not dispute.

However, to take and mix up diffrent matters without all the relevant details applicable to the matter in question can in fact cloud detract from any issue.

Take your comment regarding what I would do if my children were threatened any lawlessness, my actions would have nothing whatsoever to do with anything else to which I agree or disagree, it would be only relevant to that one thing.

I feel you miss my point regarding God and Satan.

We as humans cannot comprehend what a being able to create the universe and all it entails is restricted by or not and we can only consider matters in our limited way.

If you take every step one at a time there is always the possibility that in fact God has acted in the only manner possible to fullfil his intentions.

You have those who say how could a loving God do this or that but the problem is what else was the alternative if we do not know all that was invloved?.

avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:21 am

marcolucco,
I have to do things in parts because my posts often just disappear.

Several sciptures show clearly that Satan is in charge of wordly affairs at the present time, no more so than ( 2 Corinthians 4:3,4) along with 1 John 5 :19.

So any Christian will not hold God responsible for any worldly events other than when God has had to protect his people when Satan has gone beyond his limitations regarding his ability to turn everyone against God.

I am aware of the fact that many feel God would not or should not have made a deal with Satan but then who are we to judge when we do not know all the facts nor the actual make up of the universe in which God resides?.

regards.

It is nice to have a reasonable discussion for once.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:29 am

                 
polyglide wrote: I feel you miss my point regarding God and Satan.

               
I don't usually miss points, polyglide, unless of course they are so obscure as to defeat my comprehension.

polyglide wrote:  We as humans cannot comprehend what a being able to create the universe and all it entails is restricted by or not and we can only consider matters in our limited way.
Yes, I agree, which makes discussions on theology quite hard.


               
polyglide wrote:  If you take every step one at a time there is always the possibility that in fact God has acted in the only manner possible to fulfil his intentions. You have those who say how could a loving God do this or that but the problem is what else was the alternative if we do not know all that was involved?.    


Yes, that possibility is present - I've no idea what it would mean to a discussion though. And it is true that human interpretation of divine action is by definition flawed. However, when we discuss God we are making the assumption that he is as described in the OT and is capable of displaying love and mercy as we understand them. Strangling a baby to death, for instance, would not immediately suggest to us an act of love and mercy. If we are to interpret acts of cruelty as divine acts of love then we can be forgiven for being a bit confused. There is no point first going along with common sense and detecting God in complexity and design, and then dismissing common sense when we see evidence that suggests God is either absent or brutal. I've already said that common sense, applied to particle physics - and a fortiori to God - is inadequate. Go well.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:58 pm

by marcolucco Today at 12:29 pm

polyglide wrote:
I feel you miss my point regarding God and Satan.

I don't usually miss points, polyglide, unless of course they are so obscure as to defeat my comprehension.

Nor do I, nor Sharina, nor Stu-bless him (RIP), nor Awfultruth, nor Tosh, indeed none of a long list of posters on here seemed to have trouble with their comprehension unless conversing with Polyglide. It's a puzzler all right, if only we could pin down the cause.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:23 am


Ah - I enjoyed discussions with Sharina and Tosh on another forum a few years ago. Tosh and I had some interesting theoretical disagreements but he invariably succumbed to reason. We had issues about the infallibility of his brand of atheism but I recall he was a good learner.

Since polyglide seems to be the sole exponent of the religious view I think he merits lots of scope. I am not unhappy abut revisiting old truths, old legends and old misinterpretations. As a poet I offer lots of poetic licence but rescind it in the face of rudeness wrapped in stupidity, thankfully absent I find from God discussions. Most folk interested in discussing God have some of the milk of human kindness. Perhaps that is a warning that we should never replace God with political beliefs. Better the devil we know..... Twisted Evil
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:53 am

I'm not sure how you could replace religious beliefs with anything anyway. It seems highly implausible to me that you could ever stop anyone believing something. Some kind of Orwellian 1984 dystopian society that monitors every thought and brings people in for "re-education" if they diverge from what is allowed. Doesn't sound very appealing tbh. 

I have no problem with people holding religious beliefs. I do however think church and state ought to be entirely separate,  and a child's education should be secular. Holding a belief is a right,  but it doesn't afford the holder any rights beyond those everyone else possesses.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:04 am

marcolucco,
In no way do I intend to imply that you do not understand because you are lacking more that I am unable to explain.

Throughout my life I have had all the doubts etc; that other people have regarding God and his apparent actions that appear to us dubious to say the least, however, as humans have progressed ( in my opinion ) towards the end that the Bible indicates, along with lifes experiences, it is apparent to me that although many things are unexplainable God is the answer rather than anything else.
avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by polyglide on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:17 am

marcolucco,
I have just refreshed my Bible account of the position the earth will be in during and just prior to the time when God will oust Satan.

I am sure you will have as a matter of course done so yourself at some time.

At no time in our history has the present state of the earth been as it is today other than at the time the Bible records the times of Noah. ( 1 Thessalonians 5:2 )

Can you honestly say that there is a chance that mankind can sort out the present state he has got the world into?.




avatar
polyglide

Posts : 3118
Join date : 2012-02-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:30 pm

What relevance have those posts to do with "what proper evidence has religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism". You make fairly broad claims, but offer no evidence of any kind.

Polyglide wrote:At no time in our history has the present state of the earth been as it is today

In what sense, how do you know this, and what evidence have you, and of course how does this difference, if you can evidence it, validate your other claims? Hitchen's razor if poised ready to cut out un-evidenced claims.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Jsmythe on Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:35 pm


Polyglide may counter with the Peter Hitchens method.

Just jesting to both of you.
Wink
avatar
Jsmythe

Posts : 139
Join date : 2011-10-09
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Jsmythe on Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:47 pm

marcolucco wrote:
Ah - I enjoyed discussions with Sharina and Tosh on another forum a few years ago. Tosh and I had some interesting theoretical disagreements but he invariably succumbed to reason. We had issues about the infallibility of his brand of atheism but I recall he was a good learner.

Yes they were quite enjoyable. I was like Tosh from the other end perspective and I too have learn't a great deal. I am indebted to you Marco old friend. And yes your suspicions are correct. (When wearing your Holmes hat) Still 'Tipsy' but improving.

Go well



avatar
Jsmythe

Posts : 139
Join date : 2011-10-09
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Jsmythe on Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:52 pm

marcolucco wrote:
Since polyglide seems to be the sole exponent of the religious view I think he merits lots of scope. I am not unhappy abut revisiting old truths, old legends and old misinterpretations. As a poet I offer lots of poetic licence but rescind it in the face of rudeness wrapped in stupidity, thankfully absent I find from God discussions.  Most folk interested in discussing God have some of the milk of human kindness. Perhaps that is a warning that we should never replace God with political beliefs. Better the devil we know..... Twisted Evil

Very Happy
avatar
Jsmythe

Posts : 139
Join date : 2011-10-09
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:10 pm


               
polyglide wrote:Throughout my life I have had all the doubts etc. that other people have regarding God and his apparent actions that appear to us dubious, to say the least; however, as humans have progressed ( in my opinion ) towards the end that the Bible indicates, along with life's experiences, it is apparent to me that although many things are unexplainable God is the answer rather than anything else.  

That is the crux of this debate: God as the explanation of what we cannot explain. Very often the inexplicable becomes embarrassing and we are reluctant to reveal this or that in case we raise scornful laughter. I am confident that there are areas beyond our scientific scope, areas that may at some date be explained. Occam's razor test is just a fancy way of getting us to make reasonable choices, instead of moving towards the elaborate and fanciful. Thus we don't now accept that Apollo is the generating force behind the Sun. We once postulated the existence of a destroyed planet, Vulcan, between the Sun and Mercury, to explain an aberration in Mercury's orbit. Einstein's relativity produced the perfect explanation. I think that in time we will put aside our various faiths and discard our religious Vulcans. I also believe that truth will be kinder than some of the things we have forced ourselves to accept. Is it really credible, for instance, that an omnipotent deity used the slaughter of Egyptian baby boys just to get his way?

I used to discuss Revelations with a priest and he eventually conceded that the writer was not quite sane. The images spring from the type of worship and superstitions prevalent 2000 years ago, with monsters and horrors. We talk of prophets - but what have they prophesised? Sybil, an old lady who approached King Tarquin with nine books of predictions, asked too high a price; Tarquin refused, so she burned 3 and offered him 6 at the same price; he refused and she burned another 3, offering the last 3 at the same price. He bought them. A story as nice as any in the Bible.

It is apparent to me that the God of the Bible is not the answer to life's various mysteries. Had Caesar seen a TV he would undoubtedly have ascribed its power to Minerva. As I said before it is our ignorance that invents God, not our wisdom. Go well.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:13 pm

A true Revelation, and I am tipsy with delight at the discovery of an old friend, prodding among the dead leaves of old arguments to prove or disprove God's existence. Go well, as we would say.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by marcolucco on Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:23 pm

DSC wrote:I'm not sure how you could replace religious beliefs with anything anyway. It seems highly implausible to me that you could ever stop anyone believing something.

I'm quite sure you can and I am quite sure I have. The basis of good, rational argument is to aim to be correctly persuasive. When I play chess my first aim if to win and to an extent discussions are chess games. Sadly we don't win every game, though I should immodestly say I have acquired a fair amount of cash from such as The Ruy Lopez or the French. There is little money to be made from God but lots of disappointments.

If you put something reasonable in place of what you are describing as unreasonable, then you persuade. God, of course, as Francis Thompson wrote, is an implacable pursuer. Christian debaters are tough but Muslim debaters require the skill to part the Red Sea, a skill that has (as yet) eluded me. Regards.
avatar
marcolucco

Posts : 256
Join date : 2015-11-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:49 pm

marcolucco wrote: Sybil, an old lady who approached King Tarquin with nine books of predictions, asked too high a price; Tarquin refused, so she burned 3 and offered him 6 at the same price; he refused and she burned another 3, offering the last 3 at the same price. He bought them. A story as nice as any in the Bible.

It is apparent to me that the God of the Bible is not the answer to life's various mysteries. Had Caesar seen a TV he would undoubtedly have ascribed its power to Minerva. As I said before it is our ignorance that invents God, not our wisdom.  Go well.

I get an uneasy feeling in the pit of my stomach when I envisage books burning, no matter what's in them. I agree wholeheartedly with the second paragraph, and the more apologetics i read the more this impression is reinforced, especially when I encounter those vastly more intelligent than myself using tortured rationalisations to give nuanced explanations to things that are either frankly absurd, or the very definition of moral turpitude.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:53 pm

marcolucco wrote:
DSC wrote:I'm not sure how you could replace religious beliefs with anything anyway. It seems highly implausible to me that you could ever stop anyone believing something.

I'm quite sure you can and I am quite sure I have. The basis of good, rational argument is to aim to be correctly persuasive. When I play chess my first aim if to win and to an extent discussions are chess games. Sadly we don't win every game, though I should immodestly say I have acquired a fair amount of cash from such as The Ruy Lopez or the French. There is little money to be made from God but lots of disappointments.

If you put something reasonable in place of what you are describing as unreasonable, then you persuade. God, of course, as Francis Thompson wrote, is an implacable pursuer. Christian debaters are tough but Muslim debaters require the skill to part the Red Sea, a skill that has (as yet) eluded me.   Regards.

Oh I never meant to suggest that some arguments are not more rational, and can therefore refute others, far from it. Merely that if someone chooses to cling to a belief in the face of all reason and evidence you can't force them to give it up. A slow process of education is that answer, why else would every theist I encounter turn pale when I suggest faith schools are tantamount to child abuse and that a child's education should be entirely secular. They can still try to fill their heads with tales of wizardry and magic based on bronze age superstition at home or in church, more's the pity, but they know in their hearts the competition would be on a more level playing field. Children have a way of sniffing out the ridiculous and the irrational, when they have the facts at their disposal and before they have been indoctrinated to subjugate their own reason and simply believe, it is truly humbling.
avatar
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD

Posts : 3167
Join date : 2013-10-11
Location : Wales

Back to top Go down

Re: Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 16 of 20 Previous  1 ... 9 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum