Is this good for Christianity?

[Paul Christensen]

and if one brings no preconceived beliefs to the equation?

i think "assumptions" are decent enough beginnings...they become theories, etc?
do you know a better way to test everything, m christensen?

To determine whether something is to use the scientific method
The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

• The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
• Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
• An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
• An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

 

[bbyrd009]

yes ty m christensen
but wadr you managed to not reply to my Qs

To determine

 

[Justadude]

ha ya i guess thats not much diff huh...but then "crazy" is subjective i guess lol

Apparently so.

imo that is even in the Bible, although i dont harp on it too much; but "believers" are likely those in the worst shape possible, as indicated by many Bible vv, What did you go out into the wilderness to see? seven worse spirits, twice the sons of hell you are, your gatherings do more harm than good, Legion, on and on. The "Good" Samaritan, understand why the tax-collectors and prostitutes are beating you into the kingdom, i could fill a page i guess. The Bible is very plain that that up there is not going to happen, too, many vv for that as well.

i mean dont get me wrong, when we find Immanuel life can be a paradise imo, but it looks nothing like what believers imagine i guess, not a religious thing at all, at least in my experience. Well, and apparently the Good Samaritan's too :)

:)

 

[Justadude]

yes ty m christensen
but wadr you managed to not reply to my Qs

@Paul Christensen has had many, many different people--Christians and non-Christians alike--try and try and try to get him to understand just how ridiculous his "science can't study events that no one saw" talking point is, and how in making that argument in the context of Christianity he makes Christians look ridiculous.

His response is typically what you just saw....he ignores most of what people post, leaves for a bit, and then returns to make the exact same ridiculous argument all over again.

It's pretty sad, really.

 

[Marymog]

I'm effectively surrounded by Christians and Christianity. Just about all my family and friends are Christians, so almost every social situation (outside of work) includes elements of Christianity, such as prayers, references to the Bible, and relevant to this topic, attempts to persuade me to go to church and convert. The problem for me is how in our society, attempts to convert people like me to Christianity are perceived as well-intended, good natured, and for my benefit. Conversely, if I were to debate the subject seriously or, god forbid (HAH), attempt to persuade them to adopt my point of view it would be perceived as rude. IOW, it's not a level playing field. They're free to badger me as much as they like, but I'm not free to do the same. So I usually end up politely listening to their appeals and saying something like "That's interesting" and "I'll think about it".

So I think maybe coming here is a cathartic exercise of sorts, where I get to have discussions and debates with Christian friends and family that I can't have in real life.

Your friends and family that try to convert you are passionate in what they believe and have faith that what they believe is true. I suspect if you were passionate and have faith that what you believe is true there would be nothing wrong with you trying to ‘convert’ them. Do you believe you have the truth?

Curious Mary

 

[Justadude]

Your friends and family that try to convert you are passionate in what they believe and have faith that what they believe is true. I suspect if you were passionate and have faith that what you believe is true there would be nothing wrong with you trying to ‘convert’ them. Do you believe you have the truth?

Curious Mary

It's not so much about whether I'm passionate or think I have the truth, it's more that I'm just not religious at all, and the religious way of thinking is very foreign to me. So in most cases I really don't care what a person's religion is, and as a result I have no motivation to try and persuade them to alter their beliefs.

If it was up to me, it'd never come up when I'm around my friends and family. But I understand it's very important to them, so I just deal with it.

 

[Marymog]

It's not so much about whether I'm passionate or think I have the truth, it's more that I'm just not religious at all, and the religious way of thinking is very foreign to me. So in most cases I really don't care what a person's religion is, and as a result I have no motivation to try and persuade them to alter their beliefs.

If it was up to me, it'd never come up when I'm around my friends and family. But I understand it's very important to them, so I just deal with it.

I understand your dilemma.

If your friends/family are passionate about their faith and want to talk about it and they invite you to church then it is important for you to engage with them in conversation OR at least politely listen to them. Maybe even appease them and go to church with them.

Likewise if you are passionate about something (sports, airplanes, politics, etc.) and you want to talk about it and you invite them to sporting events then it is important for them to engage in conversation or at least politely listen to you. They should appease you and go to sporting events with you.

That is just what friends/family do for each other.

Mary

 

[Justadude]

I understand your dilemma.

Thanks for understanding. It's something I feel like I've been dealing with for much of my life.

If your friends/family are passionate about their faith and want to talk about it and they invite you to church then it is important for you to engage with them in conversation OR at least politely listen to them. Maybe even appease them and go to church with them.

If it was now and then, it'd be a lot easier to deal with. But it's fairly constant and has been for a long time. I've been wondering lately if my politeness is giving them a sense of hope, which only further incentivizes them to evangelize to me. On the other hand, if I'm more blunt and less polite, I'll likely offend them quite deeply.

I did draw the line on going to church several years ago though. I'd been giving in on invitations out of politeness, but actually going to church just annoys me. The worst is the communion service, where I just sit there as everyone files past on their way up to, and back from, the front. As they'd do that, some would kind of look down at me, shake their heads and "tsk, tsk", like I was a misbehaving child. After a few times of that, I put my foot down and whenever I was invited to church I'd say something like "I've been going to church since I was born, so I know what the message and experience is. So unless there's something new going on, no thank you."

That put a stop to the church invites, but I don't think they took it well.

Likewise if you are passionate about something (sports, airplanes, politics, etc.) and you want to talk about it and you invite them to sporting events then it is important for them to engage in conversation or at least politely listen to you. They should appease you and go to sporting events with you.

That is just what friends/family do for each other.

In an ideal world, sure. But this is hardly a level playing field. As you described, when they're trying to convert me to their faith they're doing something they feel is for my benefit and is incredibly important. IOW, they're truly trying to help. But if I push back and say what I really think about their beliefs, I'm being disrespectful, rude, and insulting to something that is deeply meaningful to them.

That's not the case with things like sports. I've always been a sports nut, but it's not deeply meaningful or incredibly important to me. So if someone would push back and say "I think sports are stupid", I wouldn't be offended.

 

[Marymog]

If it was now and then, it'd be a lot easier to deal with. But it's fairly constant and has been for a long time. I've been wondering lately if my politeness is giving them a sense of hope, which only further incentivizes them to evangelize to me. On the other hand, if I'm more blunt and less polite, I'll likely offend them quite deeply......

I think that is a very logical conclusion.

 

[XRose]

I had to go back to post one of this topic to see where Justadude is coming fom and Yep he's a typical sad, deluded evolutionist who swallowed every line of Jurassic Park as Gospel truth!
He started off: I realize most forums and message boards get their share of weirdness, but it appears to be particularly pervasive here. Specifically I've seen a surprising amount of anti-science and anti-intellectualism (the pandemic, evolution, climate change, to name a few), irrational hatred and fear of LGBTQs, wild-eyed conspiracy theories, and anger at even fellow Christians who don't believe the right things or have the right kind of faith..
Ok. I'll educate him.
Anti-science? We Christians love science. Sciemce constantly proves how clever GOD is and how ridiculous is Satan's lies.
Anti-intellectual? If you mean we laugh at the idiocies of Hawkings, Dawkins, Ehrman, AmonRamBam, Tyson, Krause and all other imbecilic slaves of Satan - yes we do!
Pandemic? MIght be a natural mutation of the flu bug in that filthy Chinese market but Satan may have concocted it in his moon labs with all the humans and animals he's been abducting many decades. Or maybe GOD sent it as a warning to stop fighting ISIS and start preparing for Jesus's return. Neither you nor I can say where Corona came from but my theories are pretty valid.
Evolution? Only fools believe they evolved from any sort of monkeys. All monkey things have a thumb at the rear of their feet while GOD gave humans a a big toe with very limited action and use. Just how many miracles does your silly evolution need to have that thumb migrate along the foot and become our fairly restricted big toe? Darwin's research proves Earth is Young and The Flood was a real catastrophe just as recently as the Bible says.
Climate change? The Flood 4,350 years ago chilled Earth with a great depth of cold rain. It has taken 4,350 years for Earth's underfloor heating by Sun and Moon attraction to warm Earth up to almost the warmth adam and Eve enjoyed. The science of this is beyond your undertstanding so you will sneer at it.
irrational hatre and fear of LGBTQS? Not me. However I do point out that 99% of LGBQs are made not born and all fornicators will be slaughteed when Jesus returns just as the Bible says twice.
Wild eye conspiracy theories? You must be looking in the mirror as you type that.
Anger at Christians who don't believe truth? Yes, certainly because narrow is the way and few can find it. I smile sadly at the fools who claim to be BUDDHIST Christians, Christian Evolutionists, Christian Catholics, Muslim Christians, JWs...ad nauseum.
You'll no doubt respond with some sneering rubbish showing you lack knowledge and understanding.

 

[Justadude]

Thanks for illustrating my point so well.

 

[2 Chr. 34:19]

I'm beginning to appreciate just how true that is for you, and how it sets the stage for why you and I diverge so sharply in our views on science. So if you don't mind, let's try to see if we can come to a mutual understanding of why we see things so differently.

Over in the heresy thread you posted "we are standing on our firm foundation that the literal text of the Bible is absolutely true and accurate and is what God actually said". IMO that says it all, right there. Your viewpoint is that the Bible is quite literally the words of God. The importance of that can't be overstated. I mean, THE...WORD...OF...GOD. I think sometimes I've heard that phrase so often I've lost the sense for what that means to folks like you. If it's truly the word of God, then everything in it is absolutely true and accurate and everyone on earth should know it and believe it, right? It should guide almost everything we do (and importantly for this discussion), including science, and especially science that touches on the past.

So as a result, your view of science is the same as Answers in Genesis': "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record". IOW, if scientists come across data or generate results that contradicts the word of God, then that data/result has to be wrong.

If I have that right, then it's important for you to understand how I hold what amounts to the complete opposite of that view. To tweak AiG's wording, my POV would be something like "If we come across data or results that contradicts the Bible, then the Bible may be wrong". More broadly, my POV is that science must follow the evidence where it leads, regardless of whether or not it contradicts a set of religious beliefs.

Does that make sense? It's those two dramatically different starting points that's behind our disagreements over science. It reminds me of how Ken Ham's creation museum in Kentucky depicts the situation.

And they depict how from their POV, they think proper science should operate.

A paleontologist with one eye on the fossil and the other eye on the Bible. The obvious message there is that according to their worldview, proper science would be where scientists collect data and then check with the Bible to determine how to interpret it. From what I can tell, you share that view.

And to repeat, that is not my view at all. Further, it's not the view of scientists either. Science hasn't operated by anything like AiG's rule for centuries and it isn't likely to anytime soon.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying you should change your mind or that you shouldn't be allowed to have your beliefs. If that's what satisfies and helps you live a more fulfilled and meaningful life, I'm happy for you. But I hope you also appreciate how no one else is obligated to abide by your beliefs, and science is not obligated to change their methods to accommodate them.

With that said, I'll use my next post to you to try again to help you with some of your arguments against science.

I do like that photo. Heard John Mackay (creationist guy) quote Jesus saying ‘the rocks would cry out’. look at the fossils. The rocks do cry out! Praise Jesus!