Predict the 1st Banning for uncivil behavior in the new Religious Threads...

[ModernGunner]

...Science is fully capable of admitting, indeed, designed graciously to admit, that what it thought before was wrong and to replace that wrong idea with something it now thinks is right. Science is not designed to claim, and indeed doesn't deal well with, absolutes... Science looks at an absolute and sees a new avenue of discovery. What does religion look on an absolute as?

...When a tenet of a religion is proven to be false, it's a cause for great sturm und drang and existential angst at the very least, and murder and war at worst... When a tenet of science is overturned as false and replaced by a new tenet held to be more correct, it's just called Tuesday...

Hardly. Scientists notoriously hate to admit they're wrong. Example? Light isn't a "photon" or "packet of photons". That's 'old school' thinking. More currently, light is a particle and a wave. Another example? 'Man-made global warming'. It has been debunked as a mostly a money-making scheme (including, advocate scientists keeping their funding flowing) by Al Gore and his ilk. Yet, there are those who still viciously cling to it, screaming "Denier!" to anyone that 'dare' not subserviently follow their global warming dogma. Nor have the 'global warming' fanatics ever explained (let alone apologized!) their not-so-subtle conversion of their bogus claim into 'global climate change'.

Another example: Dinosaurs. Scientists fought long and hard against changing what (they thought) a specific dinosaur looked like. At the time, anyone who even 'suggested' that the bones of a given animal were assembled improperly was ridiculed and branded a scientific 'heretic'. Yet, today we know that the 'scientists' of that day were wrong, and we have a 'truer' (perhaps not even the 'final') picture of what specific dinosaurs looked like when alive. Even today, scientists are still trying to determine the proper 'picture' of the forearms of the T-Rex, and the actual use of those forearms. T-Rex, as scientists viciously clung to believing decades ago, was not, in fact, some slow, lumbering giant.

No, scientists have been as vehemently 'radical' and 'zealous' as any religious group. And just as willing to use their 'club' (scientific 'fact') to beat down any opposition for as long and hard as possible to do so.

And, just like religion, most of science is 'theoretical'. A guess. An opinion. However 'sophisticated' and 'knowledgeable' it's claim to be, it's still just a S.W.A.G. No different then, in that aspect, than religion.

 

[ModernGunner]

The Higgs boson is not proof that god exists. It is not "the god particle" as some idiot science writer dubbed it. It's just the particle that's responsible, by its inclusion in the make up of other, larger particles, for the mass of physical matter. Without the Higgs boson, nothing which relies on mass (i.e. gravity, momentum, etc.) would have any actual effect in this universe. There would be no stars, no planets, no galaxies, and no life.

Can that opinion be empirically proven? No. Therein lies the problem making such a claim.

The Higgs boson may be. Or, it may not be. "Idiot science writer" or not, no one can prove it one way or the other. So, each person, scientist, theologian, or layman, is permitted their opinion on the matter. Ironically, it's called "theoretical physics" for a reason, LOL...

See, some study science to the exclusion of religion, some study religion to the exclusion of science. The most wise likely study both with equal alacrity, finding those points of convergence.

 

[warthog]

It will only go off the rails and get someone banned if that person should have simply refrained from the discussion. If we, as adults for the most part, act like one. I know this is a lot to ask for some of you but how about it for once?

AS for the alacrity of my study, I can't say that as I tend to take a lot of time and research to arrive at my conclusions. Trying to get there too fast leads to errors for me.

 

[D-Ric902]

The scientist JOHANNES KEPLER described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him

ALBERT EINSTEIN said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe- a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."


In his book, "Pensees," French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, BLAISE PASCAL wrote, "Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contrary to their findings. It simply transcends, without contradicting them."

ISAAC NEWTON wrote of theology and science. In his work titled, "Principia" he said that "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. ..Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."


these men are much more intelligent than I am, I think I'll believe them.

 

[jmills]

Where is the religious thread? I found this one and the announcement.

 

[Leo]

What is the meaning of life?

 

[bmbutch]

The scientist JOHANNES KEPLER described science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him

ALBERT EINSTEIN said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe- a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."


In his book, "Pensees," French mathematician, scientist and philosopher, BLAISE PASCAL wrote, "Faith tells us what the senses cannot, but it is not contrary to their findings. It simply transcends, without contradicting them."

ISAAC NEWTON wrote of theology and science. In his work titled, "Principia" he said that "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. ..Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."


these men are much more intelligent than I am, I think I'll believe them.

.

I'm not a good debater, & have stayed out of this, so Thank You for the above, Awesome!

 

[bmbutch]

Sir Francis Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."

Can't argue with bacon!

 

[CathyInBlue]

DId I say "Scientists are fully capable of admitting they were wrong."? No. I said "Science is fully capable of admitting it was wrong." That difference was deliberate. Science is the institution as a whole, one still dominated by human males and their egos. Scientists can still let their egos and their wallets get in the way of the Scientific Method, but at the end of the day, the Scientific Method will always win out. And you keep calling things opinions, but even if warranted, that does not distinguish science from religion. Religious group A claims that the world was created by the deliberate actions of a divine meercat, and to them, that statement of cosmology is law and unassailable, but it is mere opinion to religious group B that claims that the world was created by the accidental actions of a divine mongoose. Every religious law is mere opinion to people who are not of that religious persuasion. In science, opinions are properly called hypotheses and must be backed up by evidence, something completely lacking in religion, because to seek evidence is to show a lack of faith, or else those hypotheses must be discarded.

There are two fundamental swaths through professional science: theoretical science and applied science. Applied takes what we think we know for certain and build practical processes and devices on top of them, which rely on their truth to do something worthwhile. But, before those practical applications can rely on science, some scientist had to investigate it as a theory. This theoretical//applied dichotomy of science is not a weakness of science. It is a strength. Some scientists use existing science. Other scientists create brand new science out on the frontiers of scientific thought.

What would be the equivalent of theoretical/applied theology? I don't think there is one.

 

[Doug]

What is the meaning of life?

The meaning of life, much like the existence and nature of God, will be found by anyone who honestly searches for it.
I cannot answer your question any more than I can explain how purple sounds.

 

[D-Ric902]

DId I say "Scientists are fully capable of admitting they were wrong."? No. I said "Science is fully capable of admitting it was wrong." That difference was deliberate. Science is the institution as a whole, one still dominated by human males and their egos. Scientists can still let their egos and their wallets get in the way of the Scientific Method, but at the end of the day, the Scientific Method will always win out. And you keep calling things opinions, but even if warranted, that does not distinguish science from religion. Religious group A claims that the world was created by the deliberate actions of a divine meercat, and to them, that statement of cosmology is law and unassailable, but it is mere opinion to religious group B that claims that the world was created by the accidental actions of a divine mongoose. Every religious law is mere opinion to people who are not of that religious persuasion. In science, opinions are properly called hypotheses and must be backed up by evidence, something completely lacking in religion, because to seek evidence is to show a lack of faith, or else those hypotheses must be discarded.

There are two fundamental swaths through professional science: theoretical science and applied science. Applied takes what we think we know for certain and build practical processes and devices on top of them, which rely on their truth to do something worthwhile. But, before those practical applications can rely on science, some scientist had to investigate it as a theory. This theoretical//applied dichotomy of science is not a weakness of science. It is a strength. Some scientists use existing science. Other scientists create brand new science out on the frontiers of scientific thought.

What would be the equivalent of theoretical/applied theology? I don't think there is one.

What Is Applied Theology? (with picture)

not trying to provoke or anything but I believe perhaps your not as educated in religion as physics

 

[BugI02]

What is the meaning of life?

42

 

[CathyInBlue]

The meaning/purpose of life is to find your own meaning/purpose. The meaning/purpose is usually not in the finding of it, however, but in the search for it.

 

[CathyInBlue]

What Is Applied Theology? (with picture)

I was asking about the theoretical/applied dichotomy. You gave an example of applied theology. Now, how about an example of theoretical theology.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

DId I say "Scientists are fully capable of admitting they were wrong."? No. I said "Science is fully capable of admitting it was wrong." That difference was deliberate. Science is the institution as a whole, one still dominated by human males and their egos. Scientists can still let their egos and their wallets get in the way of the Scientific Method, but at the end of the day, the Scientific Method will always win out. And you keep calling things opinions, but even if warranted, that does not distinguish science from religion. Religious group A claims that the world was created by the deliberate actions of a divine meercat, and to them, that statement of cosmology is law and unassailable, but it is mere opinion to religious group B that claims that the world was created by the accidental actions of a divine mongoose. Every religious law is mere opinion to people who are not of that religious persuasion. In science, opinions are properly called hypotheses and must be backed up by evidence, something completely lacking in religion, because to seek evidence is to show a lack of faith, or else those hypotheses must be discarded.

There are two fundamental swaths through professional science: theoretical science and applied science. Applied takes what we think we know for certain and build practical processes and devices on top of them, which rely on their truth to do something worthwhile. But, before those practical applications can rely on science, some scientist had to investigate it as a theory. This theoretical//applied dichotomy of science is not a weakness of science. It is a strength. Some scientists use existing science. Other scientists create brand new science out on the frontiers of scientific thought.

What would be the equivalent of theoretical/applied theology? I don't think there is one.

In the scientific method, something has to be observable, measurable, and repeatable right?

 

[Doug]

42

Actually, 42 is the answer to "life, the universe, and everything."
The specific question to which 42 is the answer is, supposedly, "What do you get when you multiply 6 by 9." This indicates there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of things.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes, which in no way puts phenomena which act on scales beyond galactic, or timelines beyond the span of homo sapiens existence, beyond the reach of the scientific method.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Yes, which in no way puts phenomena which act on scales beyond galactic or timelines beyond the span of homo sapiens existence beyond the reach of the scientific method.

Ok. Scientifically prove that George Washington was the first President.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In the scientific method, something has to be observable, measurable, and repeatable right?

In religion, true belief is based on faith, right?

 

[PaulF]

Science doesn't prove. Science measures. Science catalogs. Science allows for extrapolation, and therefore prediction.

Math proves. Mostly that math is boring.