Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[Jack Bauer]

I also assume you are a scientist and therefore know a lot about it? If this is the case I would really be interested in any real data and logic that can be applied to God etc.

Edit: To be honest this appears to be getting towards a pointless debate over God which will go no where, can we please avoid this at least? That said I am still interested in your views on science.

 

[J-FRO]

So can somebody clarify something for me, are the actual original extant texts still used or just fragments of them? And if it is fragments, what proportion of biblical texts do they make up and how contemporaneous are they to the writing of the bible?

 

[Glaucus]

I also assume you are a scientist and therefore know a lot about it?

I'm not a scientist, but I like to think I know enough.
And calling it science fact is total and utter abuse of the scientific model and principles.

You will find this lack of scientific understanding in most atheist "extremists" who try and justify their stance with science. Which is utterly wrong.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I see your point and kind of agree. However, I do not lack scientific understanding and I am just making the point that in science you can not make models based on no observations. However, as above if proof of god (or anything) were found a true scientist would change their opinion. On the other hand as said by Castiel, a militant atheist may not as he takes the lack of a god as faith (assuming this is a fair discription of a militant atheist).

Quick edit: I guess the word you dont like is fact. If so this isnt really a debate about science by philosophy eg. what is fact? I can say with confidence that for most scientists fact is the model that has been rigorously proved. mavity being the simple example, that’s not to say fact can’t change.

 

[Glaucus]

No and yes.

A scientist would change his opinion. But you do lack understanding as you said lack of prove meant scientific fact. That is the total opposite from the scientific principles and assumptions.

 

[Dolph]

I also assume you are a scientist and therefore know a lot about it? If this is the case I would really be interested in any real data and logic that can be applied to God etc.

Edit: To be honest this appears to be getting towards a pointless debate over God which will go no where, can we please avoid this at least? That said I am still interested in your views on science.

I'm a scientist (hold a degree in Chemistry), and I can tell you that you are wrong. Science never defaults to a position of the null hypothesis in the absence of reliable testing. Science never assumes that everything doesn't exist until proven otherwise.

Science cannot make a decision without a clearly testable hypothesis and an experimental structure that should clearly demonstrate either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis to be 'true'. Furthermore, science doesn't actually deal in facts at all, it deals in predictions, science is a tool for predicting behaviour and explaining it in the simplest terms that meet the prediction. At no point does the scientific method claim that the results of the method are factual, only that they are predictively accurate and in line with the assumptions of the method. Anything beyond that can only be attributed to the faith of the scientist making the additional claim in the method to provide objective, rather than predictive, reality.

 

[Liampope]

But I disagree on this point - The fact that Science makes no such judgements and is entirely agnostic - Science has no evidence one way or another, and therefore current scientific fact is that there is no God. The difference being if God came down to earth (or some other quantifiable evidence were to be observed) this fact would change.

Sorry but that's completely wrong and a misunderstanding of the scientific method. It is not at all a current conclusion of science that there is no god! There is no evidence for a god, but a lack of evidence for something is not evidence that that something does not exist. No honest scientist would say it's a scientific fact that there is no god any more than they would say it's a scientific fact that no particles exist other than those already discovered. The position of science on a god is, as Castiel points out, agnostic.

 

[Jack Bauer]

As above, I think most of those comments come back to the philosophy of what is fact?

A question on the above, if you asked a scientist (not on the BBC but over coffee) is mavity fact what would they say?

Now if you made this a debate like this one some might go for a discussion on scientific method as you have, but more for the fun of it. Really nearly all would say it is fact.

This is similar to the lack of evidence for God. If you want to trade words and debate about God then the arguments above are fine. For example, if you ask most scientist if magic exists and got a true answer just about all would say it is a fact that magic does not exist. FACT.

Science cannot make a decision without a clearly testable hypothesis and an experimental structure that should clearly demonstrate either the hypothesis or the null hypothesis to be 'true'. Furthermore, science doesn't actually deal in facts at all, it deals in predictions, science is a tool for predicting behaviour and explaining it in the simplest terms that meet the prediction. At no point does the scientific method claim that the results of the method are factual, only that they are predictively accurate and in line with the assumptions of the method. Anything beyond that can only be attributed to the faith of the scientist making the additional claim in the method to provide objective, rather than predictive, reality.

And this is really just a text book answer and is really no different from what I said above apart from the idealised idea that no real scientists believe in fact. I assure you that this is untrue and most do.

Maybe this is a better argument for you, it is scientifically wrong to design a model when no data exists to support that model. I believe this would be science fiction, the key word being fiction.

 

[Jack Bauer]

I'm a scientist (hold a degree in Chemistry), and I can tell you that you are wrong.

And I have two, including a PhD, that doesnt make either of us right, its just an interesting discusson.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

I appreciate what you're trying to say OP but I firmly believe that there is no place in the world for religion and science to live side by side when one is evidently incorrect at all times.

 

[semi-pro waster]

i.e. Richard Dawkins. Although I'm not sure if he's ever actually called himself a "militant atheist"

I don't think he does call himself a militant atheist, in fact he has said he'd prefer to be called a "passionate sceptic" as per Bertrand Russell but his preferences apart he fits the essential criteria of being a militant atheist and in some ways is as bad as the religious zealots he despairs of.

A great scientist with a fascinating and easy to understand tone in his scientific writings but he's trying to shoehorn expertise in one area as being applicable in another. If for instance you're a world class dancer that doesn't necessarily mean that your opinion on string theory is any more valid than that of the local primary school teacher.

I appreciate what you're trying to say OP but I firmly believe that there is no place in the world for religion and science to live side by side when one is evidently incorrect at all times.

Evidently incorrect at all times? I assume that is something you can prove empirically then?

 

[Dolph]

As above, I think most of those comments come back to the philosophy of what is fact?

A question on the above, if you asked a scientist (not on the BBC but over coffee) is mavity fact what would they say?

Depends which aspects of mavity you are discussing (Nice attempt at a loaded question btw), are we discussing the observed behaviour or the mechanism for predicting and explaining it? It could be considered a fact that an object dropped on earth accelerates at 10m/s^-2, but the explanation of why is far less certain when it comes to clearly describing reality.

Now if you made this a debate like this one some might go for a discussion on scientific method as you have, but more for the fun of it. Really nearly all would say it is fact.

Again, depends on context,

This is similar to the lack of evidence for God. If you want to trade words and debate about God then the arguments above are fine. For example, if you ask most scientist if magic exists and got a true answer just about all would say it is a fact that magic does not exist. FACT.

Here you are confusing science and scientists...

 

[Jack Bauer]

It could be considered a fact that an object dropped on earth accelerates at 10m/s^-2.

Thank you

Here you are confusing science and scientists...

And your point is?

Really what I’m trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simple that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.

 

[RomanNose]

It could be considered a fact that an object dropped on earth accelerates at 10m/s^-2

No it could not, unless you were buried deep a few kilometres underground.
/pendant.

 

[Dolph]

Thank you

Thanks for confirming you were using a loaded question fallacy rather than trying to debate honestly.

How about answering the point in context, which is that scientific mechanisms and predictions are not considered facts, rather than the empirical observations?

 

[Dolph]

And your point is?

Really what Im trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simple that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.

The point is that how the scientific method behaves, and how scientists present the results, are not always the same. Scientists are not infalliable and there is plenty of room for interpretation within the scope of the scientific method based on personal beliefs and assumptions that, as long as they are stated, are acceptable positions.

The scientific method is agnostic, scientists go the spread from highly religious to highly atheistic, and can have their pet theories and ideas within science as well. Indeed, the choice of positioning between Instrumentalism and realism depends entirely on whether the scientist is willing to accept a priori the additional assumptions realism requires, rather than an evidential position.

 

[Jack Bauer]

Well I said above your answer was text book and I dont disagree and apply those principles everyday in a lab.

 

[Glaucus]

Really what I’m trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simple that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.

it's really not, why can't you just accept you were wrong and totally abused science.
Lack of evidence is not scientific fact for something not existing.

 

[Souness]

I agree with OP that not all Christians should be tarred by the same brush. The gf is a Christian and it angers me when people assume she is an airheaded creationist. However, I still can't get my head around the whole religion deal. When you consider the massiveness and complexity of the universe, I can't accept that we are all that special and that there is room in it all for a vengeful and arrogant god. For example, I live a kind, honest, selfless life, always putting others first, but I hold no religious beliefs and therefore go to hell for not worshiping him. However, some scumbag on deathrow who accepts god and repents for his sins is somehow allowed into heaven. Consider that a billion year old universe, spanning unfathomable distances has been created just so that this douchebag can be sent to heaven and I can be sent to hell, is all just too far fetched to believe.

 

[Jack Bauer]

The point is that how the scientific method behaves, and how scientists present the results, are not always the same. Scientists are not infalliable and there is plenty of room for interpretation within the scope of the scientific method based on personal beliefs and assumptions that, as long as they are stated, are acceptable positions.

The scientific method is agnostic, scientists go the spread from highly religious to highly atheistic, and can have their pet theories and ideas within science as well. Indeed, the choice of positioning between Instrumentalism and realism depends entirely on whether the scientist is willing to accept a priori the additional assumptions realism requires, rather than an evidential position.

I can’t disagree and my original statement stating that science as a subject is not agnostic when considering god is incorrect.
That said in practice I stand by “Really what I’m trying to say is for all the discussion on what is scientific fact and theory, in the real world it is simply that, discussion and in practice these things are taken as fact.”