Thread: The Scientific Method through the religious perspective.

I know the administration may not agree with this topic, but I feel it has some merit here, as it is connected to science through religion. The hipocrisy thread of archies had some merit, and I was dismayed when it went straight to the trash. Religiously speaking, it seems as if the scientific method is flawed in the eyes of creationists. I think some clarification is in order. If you are going to make the claim that science is hypocritical, then I think it stands to reason that some evidence is brought to the fore. As it is, science is not always right, that is true. The 'truths' in science change, rendering them non-absolute, this is true. HOWEVER, the only reason for these changes, is that the knowledge available to scientists and reseaches is broadened. With regards to religious practice and application, the scientific method fails, in general, to encapsulate all that is included in the religion. But, religion in and of itself is outside the scope of science, as defined by the scientific method. The unfalsifiability of God is what renders the tools of science useless to anylize it, but in science, we notice that this is what we call a fallacious argument, in that you can't prove it wrong, only right.

I will make the claim that There is a man in the world who can talk to God. No one can prove that false. UNLESS it is proven, without a shadow of a doubt, true, then we say it is unfalsifiable and unworthy of scientific merit. Religion is a definite exception to scientific review. That does NOT mean, however, that it is necessarily wrong. Quite the contrary, it means that it must be proven to be true rather than the other way around, which is what all other theories presented in a scientific argument must be, hence the ever popular 'proof by contradiction'.

Now, to address specific issues; Religious perspectives on evolution bar the evidence for evolution by claiming it to be 'secular' and 'biased' where there is no ability to apply the terms. You can't make evidence be bias, in any way. the conclusions you draw from what is infront of you is what can be subjected to a bias, but the evidence itself, is far from it. It can't be manipulated. it can't be altered. it cant be interpreted. IF those things are done to it, then it is not evidence, and would never be presented as such.

I find the Scientific method to be flawless, as it addresses everything that needs addressing, and it allows for the insertion of outlier evidence that will alter a theory. Absolutism is what causes the bias, not investigation. The religious perspectivew on the scientific method is that it is too open to be of any merit. it allows for just anything to be considered as valid, where as a religious opinion on something does not, it requires that everything be of God's design, and no other. It is the religious perspective that is flawed to science rather than the other way around. I do not deny, however, that the present scientific theories out there may be wrong, as ALL of science is not ABSOLUTE, and as such, is subject to sudden change and re-shaping. to sya that this is hypocritical, though, is to missunderstand science, as science is the pursuit of knowledge, not that absolute knowing of all things. The difference lies in the ability to accept what is new without being caught up on what is old and now wrong, in light of what is new.

I think religion is the result of what happens when someone decides that one theory is best, no matter what new supporting evidence there is that they are wrong in their theory. (please don't just trash this, if anything, send it somewhere else so that it may live on and harbor a genuine discussion.)

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

I know the administration may not agree with this topic, but I feel it has some merit here, as it is connected to science through religion. The hipocrisy thread of archies had some merit, and I was dismayed when it went straight to the trash. Religiously speaking, it seems as if the scientific method is flawed in the eyes of creationists. I think some clarification is in order. If you are going to make the claim that science is hypocritical, then I think it stands to reason that some evidence is brought to the fore.

It doesn't even make any sense. Is chess hypocritical? It is what it is. Just as theology is what it is. But what are you going to say if in the middle of a chess game your opponent starts jumping your pieces like in checkers? You are going to tell them, "sorry but you don't do that in chess", and that is exactly the same kind of response that archy has been getting. This is quite clear to someone like me who likes both science and theology but clearly knows the difference between them. Maybe its because I have a masters degree in each of these two fields, that I see this difference clearly, I don't know. I frankly don't understand why this is so difficult for so many people.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

As it is, science is not always right, that is true. The 'truths' in science change, rendering them non-absolute, this is true. HOWEVER, the only reason for these changes, is that the knowledge available to scientists and reseaches is broadened. With regards to religious practice and application, the scientific method fails, in general, to encapsulate all that is included in the religion. But, religion in and of itself is outside the scope of science, as defined by the scientific method. The unfalsifiability of God is what renders the tools of science useless to anylize it, but in science, we notice that this is what we call a fallacious argument, in that you can't prove it wrong, only right.

I quite agree until that last clause which doesn't make sense. What is a fallacious arguement? God is not a valid or meaningful concept in science. PERIOD. There is no arguement in it, this is just the way it is, just as there is no such thing as double jump in chess.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

I will make the claim that There is a man in the world who can talk to God. No one can prove that false. UNLESS it is proven, without a shadow of a doubt, true, then we say it is unfalsifiable and unworthy of scientific merit. Religion is a definite exception to scientific review. That does NOT mean, however, that it is necessarily wrong. Quite the contrary, it means that it must be proven to be true rather than the other way around, which is what all other theories presented in a scientific argument must be, hence the ever popular 'proof by contradiction'.

Again I agree up to the last statement. Being true has nothing to do with being proven to be true. Something can be true even if it can never be proven to be true. There is in fact very few things that can be proven to be true, and all of those are not provable in any absolute sense. Logical proofs only go from premises to conclusions and all it means is that if the premises are true then so are the conclusions.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Now, to address specific issues; Religious perspectives on evolution bar the evidence for evolution by claiming it to be 'secular' and 'biased' where there is no ability to apply the terms. You can't make evidence be bias, in any way. the conclusions you draw from what is infront of you is what can be subjected to a bias, but the evidence itself, is far from it. It can't be manipulated. it can't be altered. it cant be interpreted. IF those things are done to it, then it is not evidence, and would never be presented as such.

These religious perspectives you are talking about is nothing more that a desire that there be no scientific theory for the origin of life and the species because they want their theological explanation to be the only explanation that people will listen to. But clearly this attitude is neither mature nor moral.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

I find the Scientific method to be flawless, as it addresses everything that needs addressing, and it allows for the insertion of outlier evidence that will alter a theory.

Flawless? What would it mean to say that the rules of chess are flawless? The best that we can say is that there are no inconsistencies that anyone is aware of and that both chess and science have been very fruitful and rewarding activities. Science in particular has proven itself to be quite effective at discovering new and unexpected things about the world that are often very useful in technology.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

Absolutism is what causes the bias, not investigation. The religious perspectivew on the scientific method is that it is too open to be of any merit.

I OBJECT! Religious perspective? According to whom??? This is no more meaningful than to talk about "the religious perspective" on just about ANYTHING for the one thing that religion AINT GOT is any kind of universal consensus except MAYBE that religion of some sort is worthwhile. But even that is questionable because it is actually quite common to make distinctions between what they are doing which is good and "religion" which is bad.

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

I think religion is the result of what happens when someone decides that one theory is best, no matter what new supporting evidence there is that they are wrong in their theory.

No it is not! You are confusing religion with ideology. Many religions embrace an enormous diversity of thought. If you take Hinduism for example, it is practically defined by a diversity of thought for there is little else that can define it.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Flawless? What would it mean to say that the rules of chess are flawless? The best that we can say is that there are no inconsistencies that anyone is aware of and that both chess and science have been very fruitful and rewarding activities. Science in particular has proven itself to be quite effective at discovering new and unexpected things about the world that are often very useful in technology.

By flawless, I think he means that the rules of science can be applied to everything outside of science as well. And I would agree. But then, I'm an atheist, so this would not conflict with any other beliefs I may harbour.

Are you, then, saying that there are no general rules for everything?

I think he means that the rules of science can be applied to everything outside of science as well.

you would be wrong. the rules of Gpod apply to everyone and everything but science is very limited in its application

I OBJECT! Religious perspective? According to whom???

this same objection can be used against secular science,its methods and the poeple who run this forum. scientific perspective??? according to whom??? it is as subjective as the many scientists who participate in the field.

those who subscribe to science and rejects christian or religious beliefs are nothing but hypocrites and advocate a double standard.

secular scientists are incapable, as evidenced by the people who run this forum, of being fair, open minded, objective (though there is no such thing, really), or anything else they demand of christians.

they complain about the rules of salvation and God's morality yet quickly and harshly apply their rules and immorality to everyone they can.

by the way if God did not exist then why are scientists trying to escape His morality? they wouldn't have to worry about it if He didn't.

Archy, think of something original instead of "You would be wrong", or shut up and stay out of conversations that don't concern you.

by the way if God did not exist then why are scientists trying to escape His morality? they wouldn't have to worry about it if He didn't.

As an Atheist, I am scared to shit of death.. Why? Its not because im afraid of hell. It's because I am afraid that I will stop existing and my sentience would be lost. That scares me.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

I think he means that the rules of science can be applied to everything outside of science as well.

you would be wrong. the rules of Gpod apply to everyone and everything but science is very limited in its application

I OBJECT! Religious perspective? According to whom???

secular scientists are incapable, as evidenced by the people who run this forum, of being fair, open minded, objective (though there is no such thing, really), or anything else they demand of christians.

they complain about the rules of salvation and God's morality yet quickly and harshly apply their rules and immorality to everyone they can.

by the way if God did not exist then why are scientists trying to escape His morality? they wouldn't have to worry about it if He didn't.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by archaeologist

I think he means that the rules of science can be applied to everything outside of science as well.

you would be wrong. the rules of Gpod apply to everyone and everything but science is very limited in its application

I OBJECT! Religious perspective? According to whom???

this same objection can be used against secular science,its methods and the poeple who run this forum. scientific perspective??? according to whom??? it is as subjective as the many scientists who participate in the field.

those who subscribe to science and rejects christian or religious beliefs are nothing but hypocrites and advocate a double standard.

secular scientists are incapable, as evidenced by the people who run this forum, of being fair, open minded, objective (though there is no such thing, really), or anything else they demand of christians.

they complain about the rules of salvation and God's morality yet quickly and harshly apply their rules and immorality to everyone they can.

by the way if God did not exist then why are scientists trying to escape His morality? they wouldn't have to worry about it if He didn't.

As the owner of this forum I have to say I have little doubt that God exists. I do however have major doubts that you represent God in any fashion. The fact that you are arrogant beyond belief is testimony enough. If you were not so closed minded you would question your own faith. You however are so far beyond hope that the faith which you follow could instruct you to do anything and you would. Faith, not fanaticism. Wake up and realize what your doing.

Originally Posted by verzen

by the way if God did not exist then why are scientists trying to escape His morality? they wouldn't have to worry about it if He didn't.

As an Atheist, I am scared to shit of death.. Why? Its not because im afraid of hell. It's because I am afraid that I will stop existing and my sentience would be lost. That scares me.

I would very much agree here. The thought of non-existence is the single most depressing thought I've ever had. Sorry about the weirdness in my original post, I'm currently not in the greatest mind, but I felt I had to get this out here.

I would actually disagree. I have no fear whatsoever of death.

Maybe it shows I'm not happy in life, or maybe it's because I'm young, or maybe it's because I enjoy taking risks, but I don't see risk of death as a problem; I see it as a challenge to be overcome by taking risks and succeding.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

By flawless, I think he means that the rules of science can be applied to everything outside of science as well. And I would agree. But then, I'm an atheist, so this would not conflict with any other beliefs I may harbour.

Now that is an ideological approach to the world. At face value it is obviously wrong (science is science, art is art, sports are sports, etc...) so it doesn't even make sense unless you are redefining words in order to make it true. That is the typical ideological habit of forcing square pegs in to round holes. When you do that the original claim is really meaningless.

What do you mean by the word science? Is it in the modern sense where we are talking about a specific methodology, or is in the medeival sense where the word just means knowledge and theology is the "queen of the sciences". You cannot have it both ways. I was just reading this book which was making this humorus observation about how the author's atheist friends all liked to pretend that there was no such thing as art - such is the absurd consequence of this kind meaningless ideological approach.

Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

Are you, then, saying that there are no general rules for everything?

Well it depends on what you mean. If you are asking whether I believe there are rules with universal applicability then the answer is yes, and they have to do with logical consistency. BUT, does this mean that if you know these then you know all that is really important? Does it mean that everthing else follows? NO and NO.

The majority of rules in life are arbitrary convension because it is often more important to have some rules than what the rules actually are. Rules are the essence of structure and both are quite often the product of a creative process. The laws of physics can all be traced to geometric characteristics of the physical universe and there is nothing to say that the geometric structure of the universe could not have been otherwise. It seems to me, that our very being consists of rules that are a product of a creative process. This is in fact one of the things that we learn from evolution -- that not everything is a product of some deterministic process or design but is quite often a product of exploration, discovery and learning what can work. I may be a physicist but I don't believe that biology is reducible to physics, or that our biology is the only possible biology. So I don't think there is anything inevitable about the course of evolution, this is part of what I would mean by saying that evolution is a creative process.

If you were not so closed minded you would question your own faith.

this is one of the problems here. we keep going over the same gorund, time after time.

#1. been there,done that. i do not have to question my faith every time a discuss with a non-believer. that is ridiculous and pointless, especially when it is the same arguments being rehashed over & over.

#2. you mis-understand about christianity. God makes the rules, the Holy Spirit helps us abide by them, we do not get to be open minded when God says we can't.
we have to be obedient to Him not sceince or its adherents.

#3. the time for questioning comes BEFORE the decision NOT after.

#4. we do not need science to lead us to anything, we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit. they do not omit science but put it in its proper place and show us the right and wrong, the good and bad, etc. of that field as well as every other field.

what you forget is that their are rules in place that transcend anything science can come up with and if we believe God we cannot turn around and accept what seculae science says in contradiction to Him. that is why it is called 'right' and 'wrong'

secular science and its adherents do not grasp this simple concept as they usually avocate-all science is good science and that is not even close to the truth. if it were dr.mengeles would not have been hunted down nor his assistants.

You however are so far beyond hope that the faith which you follow could instruct you to do anything and you would.

no, it would have to be within God's rules, His purpose and i would not be committing sin. you confuse faithful obedience with blind fanaticism. eric rudolph would be a good example of the latter and he was wrong. God does NOT instruct His people to sin or to have attitudes like rudolph or people like him.

Wake up and realize what your doing.

i think you should do that, a fanaticism for science is NOT correct and is as wrong as the fanaticism you accuse me and other christians of doing.

i hope that addresses your post to your satisfaction

moderator action: having refused to change this post in response to a courtesy warning, this post is being edited to remove inappropriate material.

#4. we do not need science to lead us to anything, we have Jesus and the Holy Spirit. they do not omit science but put it in its proper place and show us the right and wrong, the good and bad, etc. of that field as well as every other field.

In that case, stop using your computer, your car, your heating and AC in your home, you microwave, your coffee maker, etc. Let's see, without science you can live in a cave with a nice little fire. Just be sure to cut the wood with an axe.

what you forget is that their are rules in place that transcend anything science can come up with and if we believe God we cannot turn around and accept what seculae science says in contradiction to Him. that is why it is called 'right' and 'wrong'

You also can't prove that the words you follow are the true words of God. You are using a best guess estimate that they are based on what you have been told and they have been told, etc. Stop preaching religion here, this is not the place. You are not answering questions, you are simply preaching.

I quite agree until that last clause which doesn't make sense. What is a fallacious arguement? God is not a valid or meaningful concept in science. PERIOD. There is no arguement in it, this is just the way it is, just as there is no such thing as double jump in chess.

and this is why you cannot do a scientific study of religion. without God there is no religion period for false religions are designed to deceive people and draw people away from Jesus. without them, their is nothing to draw people away from. plus christianity would NOT exist, there would be no one to worship

THUS secular science HAS TO CHANGE to be able to do a scientific study of any religion. IT HAS to assume that God exists or its studies are worthless.

But the above proves my point, given to me by God, that science only deals with partialdata, limited information and tries to draw conclusions based upon incomplete studies. until you include everything, your conclusions mean nothing and just waste time and money.

oh they do show how secularists, do not want the truth, want to be willfully deceived as they construct a system designed to omit the truth. thatis why you cannot listen to secular scientists , science and why neither are an authority they refuse to be honest, ethical and moral.

In that case, stop using your computer, your car, your heating and AC in your home, you microwave, your coffee maker, etc. Let's see, without science you can live in a cave with a nice little fire. Just be sure to cut the wood with an axe.

i will tell you now that scientists did not invent everything nor was science used to invent those items. what people did was use their God given brains and the God given natural materials to come up with such ideas.

science has nothing to do with it. God's creation did and so did God BUT if you want to take credit for the good things then you must take punishment for the bad--pesticides which poison people and animals, chemical warfare which kills thousands and thousands, all weapons from knives to nuclear bombs which have killed millions, medicines that have side effects which are worse than the disease itself and kills thousands.

i could go on but instead of being arrogant, you should be humbled and remorseful for the damage science has caused to God's creation.

i will tell you now that scientists did not invent everything nor was science used to invent those items. what people did was use their God given brains and the God given natural materials to come up with such ideas.

So God came up with evolution then? And since God is infallible, thus, he is right about evolution and to question evolution is to actually question God... interesting.