HeliX Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 The post directly before you accused me of Gerry bashing. Sounds mildly distasteful in decent company. I'll let you know if I spot any Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 this is a great science video including "the limits of science". it gives perspective to this thread x https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EREhY_Okl2M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Zacharias and Lennox are Christian Scientists. Not a Scientist with a Christian belief...they practice Christian Science. As soon as I found that out about them, I instantly disregard anything they had to say. They hold as much stock with me as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Their beliefs don't prevent me from recognising the wisdom here. science is a part of a wealth of available knowledge. the limits are obvious. it has little to say about the most important things in life x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Their beliefs don't prevent me from recognising the wisdom here. science is a part of a wealth of available knowledge. the limits are obvious. it has little to say about the most important things in life x But it is not wisdom because all of their "understanding" is from a fixed viewpoint..."God did it". And with that flawed reasoning, i.e. starting with "an" answer and working to making the question fit it, rather than the true scientific method, i.e. observing a result and trying to replicate it etc, they should be ignored. It's their kind of thinking that has held humanity back for all these years. We can put a man on the moon, and the internet sends information across the globe and the speed of light, yet people still believe that clasping your hands and wishing to an invisible entity will make it not rain on your wedding day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 i accept your view point rmanx. but i still believe that, to know the limits of science is indeed wise. to understand that human emotion and interaction cannot be measured by science alone. it's not even close to giving an answer as to the why of life. science can't tell our children what they naturally inquire about, as was mentioned in the video. i thoroughly enjoyed this clip and i'm not a christian, although i do believe in a source of the world we live in. how else could we be here? how did the ball get here? surely not from the "cosmic soup", which i find ridiculous x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 i accept your view point rmanx. but i still believe that, to know the limits of science is indeed wise. to understand that human emotion and interaction cannot be measured by science alone. it's not even close to giving an answer as to the why of life. science can't tell our children what they naturally inquire about, as was mentioned in the video. i thoroughly enjoyed this clip and i'm not a christian, although i do believe in a source of the world we live in. how else could we be here? how did the ball get here? surely not from the "cosmic soup", which i find ridiculous x I'd rather the scientific view point "We don't know all the answers...yet. But we will keep looking and increasing our knowledge and understanding", to the alternative "God is the only answer you need to know...cancer? Gods will. Why are we here? Gods will" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 they separate science and religion in the video and specifically state that hawkins offers a false choice as though there are no other options. and as people we do have so many answers that science has nothing to do with. we have free will and can choose to plan design and create our lives. who we like and dislike, who we love and fear. what we imagine and dream. science has no place in these aspects of our lives and cannot measure or answer our questions of the how and why. i love science in it's fundamental quest but i trust my conscience first when it comes to right and wrong. again science has no say here. we all experience and compute the world around us firsthand. we are scientists by default! there's a fine line between science and seance though and it's wise to be aware of the difference. x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 they separate science and religion in the video and specifically state that hawkins offers a false choice as though there are no other options. and as people we do have so many answers that science has nothing to do with. we have free will and can choose to plan design and create our lives. who we like and dislike, who we love and fear. what we imagine and dream. science has no place in these aspects of our lives and cannot measure or answer our questions of the how and why. i love science in it's fundamental quest but i trust my conscience first when it comes to right and wrong. again science has no say here. we all experience and compute the world around us firsthand. we are scientists by default! there's a fine line between science and seance though and it's wise to be aware of the difference. x Like/Dislike and Love/Hate is pretty well covered by science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 sure but we decide those things for ourselves. science can't. you can verify who you like and why you like them. science can only ask you and make assumptions based on what you already know and decided. that's my point if you get my drift x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 sure but we decide those things for ourselves. science can't. you can verify who you like and why you like them. science can only ask you and make assumptions based on what you already know and decided. that's my point if you get my drift x Quite, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 i accept your view point rmanx. but i still believe that, to know the limits of science is indeed wise. to understand that human emotion and interaction cannot be measured by science alone. it's not even close to giving an answer as to the why of life. science can't tell our children what they naturally inquire about, as was mentioned in the video. i thoroughly enjoyed this clip and i'm not a christian, although i do believe in a source of the world we live in. how else could we be here? how did the ball get here? surely not from the "cosmic soup", which i find ridiculous x I'd rather the scientific view point "We don't know all the answers...yet. But we will keep looking and increasing our knowledge and understanding", to the alternative "God is the only answer you need to know...cancer? Gods will. Why are we here? Gods will" Fair points but science itself is not unlike a religion with it's boundaries and accepted paradigms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Zacharias and Lennox are Christian Scientists. Not a Scientist with a Christian belief...they practice Christian Science. As soon as I found that out about them, I instantly disregard anything they had to say. They hold as much stock with me as Ken Ham and Ray Comfort. Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Do you have any evidence that Zacharias or Lennox are practitioners of Mary Eddy Baker's Christian Science? I have never read that anywhere and in fact much of what they have said leads me to believe they are both orthodox evangelical Christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaac Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Naturalism, materialism and atheism are all examples of belief bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted June 10, 2015 Share Posted June 10, 2015 Science should be neutral and devoid of belief bias. Naturalism, materialism and atheism are all examples of belief bias. No they're not, retard. I know you think atheism is a belief, TJ, but it's not. It's the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.