Sharky

[Gonz]

Not a word for months & you have to stick your nose in here.

Describe doesn't. But if you'd use your logic, you'd understand the point I was making, which is faith is needed for many things, even in science. To describe something unfathomable to another requires that leap.

 

[Squiggy]

You're confusing me...Science doesn't make leaps like that. Science requires proof. Else it ain't science...

 

[a13antichrist]

Describe doesn't. But if you'd use your logic, you'd understand the point I was making, which is faith is needed for many things, even in science. To describe something unfathomable to another requires that leap.

Science, when it has to guess, uses reasonable assumptions and works on the basis of "most likely".

No mother would accept "a magical green blob of jelly that defied all physical laws appeared in the room and flew around in circles and teleported itself from place to place and made the cat turn pink and then back again and grew a donkey from a pea & then ate it, and then flew out the window & that's how the window got broken, but don't try and investigate any evidence of this, it's just something you have to have FAITH in, any evidence like my ball outside with shards of glass in it are just things put there by the blob to distract infidels!" It's not good enough for little things and it's CERTAINLY not good enough for big things.

 

[Gonz]

You're confusing me...Science doesn't make leaps like that. Science requires proof. Else it ain't science...

Say Squiggy, did you happen to see the latest quark that MIT ran across?

Neither did I. Bet it still exists.

 

[MrBishop]

Science, when it has to guess, uses reasonable assumptions and works on the basis of "most likely".

The problem is that 'most likely' if often overturned as erronious and a new 'most likely' takes its place. What then happens is that all logical assumptions based on one 'most likely' fall apart, ad nauseum.

Although scientific proof is stronger IMHO than faith, science has many eaons of work before it can explain everything. We don't even understand gravity completely...

Let's create a new element - god (molar weight Varies/unknown).

We can use it in calculations to explain anti-matter, black matter and use it in a grand unification theory until further notice. When another logical proof gets discovered, we can replace element G with it.

 

[Luis G]

Say Squiggy, did you happen to see the latest quark that MIT ran across?

Neither did I. Bet it still exists.

Is there a device, such that can measure the prescense of God? (based on scientific theories of course)

 

[Squiggy]

Theories are reason for research. They don't become factual knowlege until the data supports that conclusion....

 

[chcr]

Say Squiggy, did you happen to see the latest quark that MIT ran across?

Neither did I. Bet it still exists.

*Sigh*

Umm...
Reproducible results?

*muons and guons and quarks, oh my*

 

[a13antichrist]

The problem is that 'most likely' if often overturned as erronious and a new 'most likely' takes its place. What then happens is that all logical assumptions based on one 'most likely' fall apart, ad nauseum.

Actually, this is precisely its strength. Science DOES accept that it may have been wrong in the first place. "Most likely" obviously depends on the information currently available and as more is discovered, "most likely" changes - a most basic tenet of scientific investigation and precisely that of which blind faith is incapable.

 

[Luis G]

Actually, this is precisely its strength. Science DOES accept that it may have been wrong in the first place. "Most likely" obviously depends on the information currently available and as more is discovered, "most likely" changes - a most basic tenet of scientific investigation and precisely that of which blind faith is incapable.

Just as Carl Sagan said it.

 

[Squiggy]

Or as Rumsfeld said..."there are knowns. And there are unknowns. And there are unknown knowns and known unknowns. and then theres the unknown unknowns which we don't know we don't know , unlike the known unknowns that we know we don't know and the unknown knowns that we don't know we know and then theres the known knowns that the administration reserves its right to unknow for known reasons...that you'll never know"...

 

[MrBishop]

Actually, this is precisely its strength. Science DOES accept that it may have been wrong in the first place. "Most likely" obviously depends on the information currently available and as more is discovered, "most likely" changes - a most basic tenet of scientific investigation and precisely that of which blind faith is incapable.

There's blind faith and faith with open eyes...

I'm agnostic. I don't go through my faith with eyes wide-closed...believeing for the sake of believing. I use the parts of religion/spiritualism that suit me and would prefer proof for everythng else.

I doubt that the Bible is the verbatim account of what really happened. I have yet to see proof of a world-wide flood (Noah's ark), or several other miracles associated with Jesus or God ...

...but, I am not willing to discount the ideology and moral teachings that are in the Bible or associated with the religion, for lack of proof.

I can, as many others before me and beside me, follow the tenets of religious morals/mores despite lack of proof. If it turns out that the Bible is nothing more than a fanciful book written by one or more people to show moral living in a 'real life' situation, then the morals shouldn't suffer because of it.

ie. Despite what you may think of Neitche or Freud, their research is useful and has led to better understainding of human consciousness.
Despite the insanity of Bethoven(sp), his compositions still ring beautifully.
Despite the rampant drug use of several painters, their paintings are still moving.
Despite scientific proof of biblical events, their morals are still good.

 

[a13antichrist]

...but, I am not willing to discount the ideology and moral teachings that are in the Bible or associated with the religion, for lack of proof.

I can, as many others before me and beside me, follow the tenets of religious morals/mores despite lack of proof. If it turns out that the Bible is nothing more than a fanciful book written by one or more people to show moral living in a 'real life' situation, then the morals shouldn't suffer because of it.

I'm 100% in agreement with you. The moral teachings (with the exception of the Bible's opinion of sex, and you know very well what I think about that) are independantly valid - but accepting these teachings doens't mean you're required to believe in SOME from of deity or higher power because of the relevance of these teachings. You're right, morals shouldn't suffer because of it - but neither should simple common sense about what's likely & what's not.