What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
Easily as much as I do in the Bible, and Sagan didn't try to contend it really happened.
"Because Science works....... BITCHES!"
** Certainty is certainly unnecessary for empirical knowledge
The notion that empirical knowledge would have to be "certain" in order to be knowledge is an old error -- a hangover from tin-platonized xian theology. Kant tied himself in knots trying to pull a priori empirical knowledge out of some transcendental top hat.
The word 'belief' applied to statements allows degrees (more, most believable) -- 'knowledge' applied to statements does not allow degrees. In the shorthand of logic Kp --> p, if a statement p is known, then it is true. Thus if p is false, a knowledge claim has to be withdrawn. [-p --> -Kp] (Notice it’s not the proposition which is certain, but the relationship between two propositions which is logically necessary.)
If knowledge were limited to topics about which certainty could be obtained, no empirical statement could be known. That’s a stringent requirement which science need not apply to its statements. There is empirical knowledge. It’s the certainty requirement that gets dropped. (That is, fallible knowledge is what science, unlike mathematics, deals with.)
So . . . the atheist asks “according to your concept of God, is there any empirical evidence that would count for or against there being a God?” For example, does a monotheist from the big-4 near eastern religions hold that God (Allah, Yahweh, Ahura Mazda) is all-knowing/benevolent/powerful? Is this God located somewhere in spacetime -- or has the transcendent one left footprints (evidence) of omnipotence behind -- as fundies claim.
If all the theories, methods, data of science can not play any role in determining the truth of a statement that ‘a unique god of such-and-such attributes exists’; then what kind of claim is the monotheist making? This claim can not be an empirical one; a fact-based reality has been left behind.
Sentences (statements, propositions): ‘God exists’ ‘God does not exist’ are not statements at all. Existence (as elementary logic shows) is not a predicate; that is, it is not a property like ‘is blue’ in the statement ‘the sky is blue.’ Of course, non-existence is not a predicate either.
Anyway, it’s easy to show that the so-called “God” of the big-4 near eastern religions does not exist. And “He” is what counts to true believers -- an “It” like Brahman won’t do. It’s also easy to show that a so-called being beyond description counts as nothing -- “A nothing would be as good as a something about which nothing could be said.” (Wittgenstein)
At this point theologians and religious philosophers hold hands and merrily chant the usual apologetic lies. Until exhausted, they trot out fideism. “We god-proxies say it, you believe it, or we will punish you to the extent of our secular powers.” (Such a threat, while it does get carried out in the US at times, lacks the punch of Iranian or Saudi enforcers of religious ideology.)
Now, is there some god or other? . . . But, that takes us back to all that’s gone before. So. . . just what kind of “being” or “non-being” are we talking about?
New name for the member calling himself Professor Robert...Dr. Bobby...full name: Dr. Ricky Bobby...he has a PhD degree from the Vatican in Catholic Apologistism. His coursework was all done at the Westboro Baptist Church, his dissertation was titled "FAG the Abomination" (it has been rumored that he had an affair with Shirley Phelps-Roper while there) (it has also been rumored that he had an affair with Fred Phelps at the same time with Shirley being none the wiser).
The above information is true in exactly the same manner as doG is true.
The above stab at humor has been brought to you by me (a regular person who recognizes bullshit when I smell it.)
Now back to your regularly scheduled forum thread.
James at MIT discovers that doing X & Y results in Z. Other scientists test, and verify or disprove it. When everyone gets the same result, it is then written in books.
Bzztdmn on Mars has never heard about James or MIT, but still discovers one warm day that doing X & Y results in Z. Other scientists on Mars test, and verify or disprove it. The result is then written in books. (It happens to be the same result found on Earth, because it's Science.)
Z is written in a book as true, so Father James says Z is true. Other Bostonians agree. No known test can confirm or deny it, anyway. It doesn't matter if someone disagrees.
Z is written in a book as false, so Father Bzztdmn on Mars says Z is false. Other Martians agree. No known test can confirm or deny it, anyway. It doesn't matter if someone disagrees.
Prof Rob wrote (somewhere back there):
To the extent that there is clear evidence of a scientific conclusion on a matter, our interpretation of other religious notions must humbly yield to that evidence. We don't get to tell God what the Bible means; He tells us. If His universe is telling us we got it wrong, then we got it wrong.
I like this approach a whole lot better than the approach that most Americans take.
"If THE universe is telling us we got it wrong, then we got it wrong."
Amen to that.
Incomplete understanding of science is not equatable with religious faith. It is still faith of a sort, but one pointing in the direction of testable reality instead of superstition, magic, and wish-fulfillment.
@Bob Again, we're not fundamentalists -
What a joke - of course catholics are fundamentalists. Opus Dei are still flailing themselves, etc. etc. You may not like being called a fundamentalist, but you are, and the cult you follow certainly is.
Your religion didn't preserve art, it plagiarized, adapted, stole, converted, assimilated, to make it easier to slide into a new era of christianity.
Your particular sect of the christian religion believes women should be subjugated by men - it is in the book where you get your rules from, and still in full swing this very day.
Your particular sect of the christian religion touts the ban on contraception for women, condoms for men - the outcomes of this are women in third world countries are having too many children, their bodies cannot cope, and they die an early death compared to women who use contraception and control the amount of children they have. Does your particular sect care - NOT ONE IOTA.
Your sect has Bernard Law ensconced behind vatican walls, protected by the latest pope, and what is this lovely man doing, but attacking and bullying a group of nuns and sisters, who see the grass roots affect this dogma has on real people, the misery it causes. They aren't towing the fundamentalist doctrine of battling gay marriage, contraception and abortion - Not just fundamentalist doctrine but evil behavior from a catholic religion who doesn't give a shite about people, only it's own power and hierarchy.
Prick that bubble of yours, Bob, and see what is going on in the real world, in the catholic name, and because you call yourself a catholic, in your name.
See, Robert, you pointed out before where you were furious over the scandals in Boston.
But what you have yet to do (and that is why so many have hammered you relentlessly on this subject--not because we imagine you approve of pedophilia yourself) is to condemn the church for its systemic policy of coverup.
Any large organization has some really bad apples in it. That's the law of averages. I won't condemn (say) the Boy Scouts or the Catholic Church because a scoutmaster or priest buggered some of his charges. It's what the organization does in response that says things about the organization. And the Catholic Church gives shelter to the pedophile priests as a matter of course. And it is NOT just a matter of a few bad apples getting to high enough rank to shelter pedophiles in their own parts of the organization. The Vatican ITSELF gives shelter to Cardinal Law.
Will you here and now condemn the Vatican for continuing to give shelter to Cardinal Law? If not, you are approving of the church's conduct in this matter. Duck or dodge? We will assume you are too ashamed to admit the church is doing wrong here.