Is religious writing a suitable subject for discussion at scienceforums?

[cwes99_03]

Thank you, Pyro. You have done as I wished. You have reexamined your posts and realized that they were in all likelihood taken by some members of this forum as insulting. I realize that 30 years ago you felt like there was no point in discussing these things. Since then you have spent the last 30 years finding reasons not to support them.

You have made attempts to find every possible contradiction, and be as skeptical as you can. Congrats. You went from believing every line that some stuffed collar in a church tried to teach you about the Bible to believing every line some anti-religionist, atheist, or what have you has tried to teach you about the Bible. In between you gave six weeks to attempting to understand the Bible.

Now maybe you did read it through 6 times in 5 weeks. Maybe you are capable of getting a great amount of understanding out of reading 12000 pages of complex old english in such a short amount of time. However, do you really believe that in that short amount of time that you were able to understand everything to an absolute truth or lie? Or do you think that there is more subtle reasoning that you may have missed that discussion among people of an educated level would be able to ferret out?

I only want a theology forum on this site because I believe that there are educated people here who may find reasons to believe again. Among them I find you.

Now some may refuse to change their opinions. I am one of those people (or rather you will have to try extremely hard and have lots of rational proof). That does not mean I'm not willing to listen to your reasonings.

 

BTW, sarcasm is just another way of brow-beating or putting someone down for their opinion. Unfortuneately we are all human, and to err is human, and I myself have sarcastically stated things to show the error of some's ways. Such as my comment above about not reading Feynman's lectures, after Pyro said

Put it this way, you certainly won't learn ANY Physics by NOT reading Feynman.

His statement was obviously wrong, but only because he didn't reread his post and catch it. I quite agree though that the best way to learn is to read some of the most important works, but then a discussion with others who have read the works would be truely beneficial as well.

[Pyrotex]

You have reexamined your posts and realized that they were ...insulting. ...You have made attempts to find every possible contradiction, and be as skeptical as you can. ...to believing every line some anti-religionist, atheist, or what have you has tried to teach you about the Bible. In between you gave six weeks to attempting to understand the Bible.

 

cwes, you amaze me. I actually read the entire Bible multiple times, and I will wager you have not. And you actually twist that around in a bizarre attempt to demonstrate that I cannot possibly know as much of the Bible as you apparently do. Every point you sought to make in your post is in error, therefore I will flame you in a private message.

[cwes99_03]

Sigh, you complement a guy and he slings mud in your face. This was the particular type of person that I did not wish to encounter at those other websites that many say discuss these things.

I realize that 30 years ago you felt like there was no point in discussing these things. Since then you have spent the last 30 years finding reasons not to support them.

You have made attempts to find every possible contradiction, and be as skeptical as you can. Congrats. You went from believing every line that some stuffed collar in a church tried to teach you about the Bible to believing every line some anti-religionist, atheist, or what have you has tried to teach you about the Bible. In between you gave six weeks to attempting to understand the Bible....

I only want a theology forum on this site because I believe that there are educated people here who may find reasons to believe again. Among them I find you.

Now some may refuse to change their opinions. I am one of those people (or rather you will have to try extremely hard and have lots of rational proof). That does not mean I'm not willing to listen to your reasonings.

 

BTW, sarcasm is just another way of brow-beating or putting someone down for their opinion. Unfortuneately we are all human, and to err is human, and I myself have sarcastically stated things to show the error of some's ways. Such as my comment above about not reading Feynman's lectures, after Pyro said

[Tarantism]

However, do you really believe that in that short amount of time that you were able to understand everything to an absolute truth or lie?

 

do you really think that in 50 years we can accept anything as an absolute truth or lie?

[Pyrotex]

do you really think that in 50 years we can accept anything as an absolute truth or lie?

 

Outside of math, physics and chemistry--probably not. But that doesn't mean that we can't ascertain truth. Often, we can draw as close to the truth as we are willing to climb, without actually grasping it in our hands. And that is often good enough.

 

Lies are another problem. An obvious example is the Piltdown Man, who was probably a hoax manufactured by the then curator at the London Museum of Science. Often the sources of lies were themselves deceived, and the original "liar" is long gone. Sometimes history is indeed written by the "winner" but in most cases, sooner or later, the truth will out.

 

The first thing in any discussion of fact vs. falsehood is to ascertain your own "attachment" to the outcome. Pretend someone just "proved" something. If your immediate reaction is one of relief or glee, disappointment or anger, then you are "attached" -- and your objectivity can be questioned.

 

If one is aware of one's own attachment to an outcome, one can discipline oneself to balance that with a measured detachment. Awareness is the key.

 

Mankind has made so many demands on "Truth" as a concept and an ideal, that it is virtually impossible to know the "Truth". If I have 99 pieces of a 10 by 10 jigsaw puzzle assembled, there will always be someone who will point to the "hole" and say, "AHA! That may not be a picture of the Eiffel Tower at all, it could just as well be a picture of Ayers Rock in Australia! You have proven nothing!"

 

Where do we draw the line? Where indeed. We humans cannot even consistently agree on what the rules "mean" -- even when we help define the rules. Some would call upon the "scientific method" and in many cases, that is entirely sufficient. In other cases, such as historical reconstructions of what was the "most likely" sequence of events (this happens all too often with Evolution), we may find that we need something more inclusive.

 

But fifty years is a long time in human reckoning. The fact that many theories of science have resisted all attempts to overthrow them for fifty or more years is a testimony to their (probable) truth.

[cwes99_03]

Then again, some theories lasted for centuries among some cultures before they were dispelled as mere myth.

[Pyrotex]

Then again, some theories lasted for centuries among some cultures before they were dispelled as mere myth.

 

Can you name any scientific theories among educated cultures (say, Europeans from the 17th Century onwards) that were disproven after more than 50 years? (There ARE a few, but not that many.)

The fact that a theory (like Newton's Laws of Motions) proved much later to be valid only at speeds less than 1% of the speed of light does NOT mean his Laws were "dispelled". They weren't and they haven't been.

The fact that some aboriginal tribes had a "belief" that disease was caused by evil spirits doesn't count either.

The fact that Science progresses by refining, amending, adding to, and occassionally replacing theories does not in any way invalidate the process of Science.

 

So, can you name any?

[Tarantism]

yes, pyro. i see exactly what you are saying here. but, in my own way i seem to have come up with an obession of questioning everything, so in my own mind nothing appears to me as the truth, except math (which i mostly see as a man-made concept, but i wont even get into that).

 

maybe my questioning is the right way to be, maybe im just a fool, but hopefully now my statement makes sense.

 

regards,

(((terantism)))

[Boerseun]

...therefore I will flame you...

:) Pyrotex is gonna get Pyrotechnical on your ***!!! :hihi:

[cwes99_03]

Can you name any scientific theories among educated cultures (say, Europeans from the 17th Century onwards) that were disproven after more than 50 years? (There ARE a few, but not that many.)

The fact that a theory (like Newton's Laws of Motions) proved much later to be valid only at speeds less than 1% of the speed of light does NOT mean his Laws were "dispelled". They weren't and they haven't been.

The fact that some aboriginal tribes had a "belief" that disease was caused by evil spirits doesn't count either.

The fact that Science progresses by refining, amending, adding to, and occassionally replacing theories does not in any way invalidate the process of Science.

 

So, can you name any?

 

I'm not necessarily a historian of scientific ideas and their acceptance as truth. BTW Newton's Laws of Motion are valid at speeds much higher than 1%. They are in fact valid to the degree that most common people are able to measure them (especially considering the measuring instruments he had back then) to near 50%c or maybe even 90%c if one has these instruments.

You make the point validly though that science is constantly growing/changing it's views.

But what does this have to do with Christianity? You imply Christianity has only been studied for the last 50 years. The last apostle died when? about 95 AD. 2005-95=???? That would be 1910 years.

The problem with your reasoning is that those rules were set by those Bible writers. So originally 1910 years ago, the truths (as the Bible taught them) were fully understood. Since then, men have made all kinds of changes to those teachings to support their own beliefs. Others have made changes to them because understanding of those teachings was lost as very few people continually sought to understand them. These same people may only have been given a Bible translation and been told to teach themselves (the Bible says that the older men should teach it, but does say that some divine inspiration would be given to understandings).

So in the past 150 years or so, increased attempts to understand the teaching as it was originally taught have been made. Why? Possibly because of the condition of the earth and its inhabitants, or maybe because of the parallels between the current state of things and the purported signs of the times?

 

Were the laws of science ever known? Maybe 2000 years ago someone did know all the laws of the unified universe, but since then they have been lost and misunderstood and only now are some attempting to recapture them :hyper:

[Pyrotex]

:cup: Pyrotex is gonna get Pyrotechnical on your ***!!! :cup:

 

I gave it the good ol' college try! :cup:

But it's doubtful I accomplished much.

Well... it did make ME feel better. ;)

[Pyrotex]

...You imply Christianity has only been studied for the last 50 years. The last apostle died when? about 95 AD.

 

Who's post were you reading?? :cup:

 

I made no mention of Christianity or the apostles. Therefore, it is obvious that I made NO implications concerning them.

[sanctus]

Now I speak as an administrator:

Pyrotex and Cwess: you have the choice either you discuss normally without getting upset with the other or you stop discussing with each other. I don't judge who of you is right and that's not the point, the point is that you havn't a constructive discussion.

[Pyrotex]

Now I speak as an administrator...a constructive discussion.

 

Thank you. It's good to know where the boundaries are.

[Pyrotex]

BTW Newton's Laws of Motion are valid at speeds much higher than 1%. They are in fact valid to the degree that most common people are able to measure them (especially considering the measuring instruments he had back then) to near 50%c or maybe even 90%c if one has these instruments... :Alien:

 

With a meter stick or yard stick, one can make a measurement easily accurate to 1%. Those 18th Century dudes, like Newton, Hook, Halley, et al, could make measurement in their laboratories to 0.1% if measuring distance, mass, you know, the easy stuff. But let us accept 1% as their field accuracy.

 

According to the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction:

1 / SQROOT( 1 - V^2 / C^2 )

where V is the relative velocity of the object and C is the speed of light;

 

Distance, mass and time measurements will be altered by Relativity in the following manner

 

V = .01 C --> 0.005% change

V = .1 C --> 0.5% change

V = .2 C --> 2.1% change

V = .3 C --> 4.8% change

V = .4 C --> 9.1% change

V = .5 C --> 15.5% change

 

So, you were correct about the low limit I set. At only 1% of the speed of light, the Relativity variance is probably less than they could have measured. But at between 10% and 20% of the speed of light, even they could have measured the variance.

 

Shall we compromise? :Alien: Newtonian mechanics is valid up to 15% of the speed of light. This produces a variance of 1% or less in measurements.