Is Righteousness a Mechanism

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, bornagainathiest said:

Posted 8 hours ago

  17 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Yes.  I have.  And I've understood it properly too.  

(C'mon!  Do you really think I ever cite anything without reading and understanding it?  Get real!)

It's got political overtones, but the thrust of the argument is that the Buddhists, Muslims, Christians and Jews who work in science DON'T bring their religious faith into their work.

They professionally choose NOT to do what you are trying to do, End.

These Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian scientists are deliberately keeping their faith and their scientific work SEPARATE.

Why?  Because science is agnostic.

There's no such thing as Buddhist science, Jewish science, Christian science or Muslim science.

There is only faith-free, agnostic science.  Period.

Got it now?

 

Or are you going to carry on opposing, denying and defying?

I'm showing no bias.... sorry you don't understand that in this situation.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

End,

 

If you understand that science is always independent of religion, then when someone (like you) uses it to explain reality in terms of their religion, they are imposing their bias on it.

 

So Yes, you are showing bias.

 

 

Look, this is an easy concept.  The comment you posted, "evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works”  has two parts.  One, the evidence based reasoning, and two, applied logically, to explain our reality.  The former is the experiment, the latter, the application.  I was not part of the experiment and therefore I could not have biased the study.  You get that, right?  Secondly, it's perfectly legal to use a study.....see the statement above......to logically apply it's findings.  You seem to be saying that one, I have biased the study, and two, that I am not applying this logically, but with bias.  You're welcome to your opinion, but there we are, and here we are. 

[Guest end3]

42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  It does not.  

 

What science tells us is that the sun remains more or less in a fixed position while the earth revolves in a lateral planetary orbit around it.  Moreover, the sun cannot "rise" over the earth; because there is no "up" or "down" in space.  However, from our lowly vantage point, we perceive the sun to rise in the East and go down in the West.  It is only our perception, though; it is not reality, nor a mechanism, nor a "fact".

 

What BAA has been patiently trying to get you to see is that you are allowing your perception to interfere with, and take the place of, the reality as defined by science.  Indeed, you are attempting to force science to conform to your perception.  Just as you have done with the sun rising in the sky.  You would like for science to support the claim; because the bible makes the claim, and you have pre-determined to believe the bible.  Unfortunately, it doesn't work with genetics, epigenetics, or "righteousness" any better than it works with the sun.  The sun does not rise; and "righteousness" is not written into our DNA.

Sure it does.  Every morning there is a time for my lat and long for sunrise and sunset.  At some point in our history, science or a primitive version thereof, was used to define this reality.  There're more ways to look at this.

 

With regard to what BAA is attempting to tell me....he did a piss poor job.  I get what he's saying, but it took him a damn long time get it out there. 

 

Btw, righteousness is a reality.  Maybe someday science will catch up.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

37 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Prof,

 

Perhaps End's unique take on subjectivity allows him to believe that reality does conform to his perceptions.  

 

Perhaps he thinks it's entirely justified for him to force science to conform to his perception.  

 

(Just speculating, btw.)

 

That would certainly be a reasonable hypothesis based upon observation and historical data.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, end3 said:

Sure it does.  Every morning there is a time for my lat and long for sunrise and sunset.  At some point in our history, science or a primitive version thereof, was used to define this reality.  There're more ways to look at this.

 

With regard to what BAA is attempting to tell me....he did a piss poor job.  I get what he's saying, but it took him a damn long time get it out there. 

 

Btw, righteousness is a reality.  Maybe someday science will catch up.

Primitive science is not the standard by which reality is measured.  That is why science is self-correcting and self-improving.  When conclusions are proven to be incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete, they are discarded for more correct, accurate, and complete conclusions based on new evidence.  The sun did not rise in the "olden" days; it stayed fixed, just as it has since time immemorial.

[Guest end3]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Primitive science is not the standard by which reality is measured.  That is why science is self-correcting and self-improving.  When conclusions are proven to be incorrect, inaccurate, or incomplete, they are discarded for more correct, accurate, and complete conclusions based on new evidence.  The sun did not rise in the "olden" days; it stayed fixed, just as it has since time immemorial.

You might want to rewrite your question then

[TheRedneckProfessor]

33 minutes ago, end3 said:

You might want to rewrite your question then

No.  I'm sure I wouldn't need to.

[midniterider]

6 hours ago, end3 said:

Sure it does.  Every morning there is a time for my lat and long for sunrise and sunset.  At some point in our history, science or a primitive version thereof, was used to define this reality.  There're more ways to look at this.

 

With regard to what BAA is attempting to tell me....he did a piss poor job.  I get what he's saying, but it took him a damn long time get it out there. 

 

Btw, righteousness is a reality.  Maybe someday science will catch up.

 

Righteousness is Ken Ham selling the Ark Park to himself for $10 to avoid paying $700,000 in taxes.

[Guest end3]

15 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  I'm sure I wouldn't need to.

Primitive science was at one time, modern science.  And modern science may still be  used to predict or explain a sunrise. 

[Orbit]

5 minutes ago, end3 said:

Primitive science was at one time, modern science.  And modern science may still be  used to predict or explain a sunrise. 

But you are ignoring the passage of time, and the way science corrects itself and changes with new discoveries, technologies, and ways of measuring. You can't use a model that says the sun goes around the earth any more; (which was a theological construct anyway); we now know that the earth goes around the sun. That's science. You can't ignore all the advances that have been made over time.

 

Are you trying to say "well that's how they understood the world to work in the past, given their limited instruments and methods for measuring things? That may well be true, but the fact remains that their conclusions, in the past, were often incorrect because of these limitations, and science progressed to change what we understand about how the world operates.

 

The problem is that what the Bible says reflects the explanations and observations (science is what you've been calling that, but it's not) of a time long past. That's because the Bible was written by Jews (the OT anyway) whose culture had observations that are not what we call science today. They observed, but they didn't do science. They made up myths to explain what they observed. Those myths became Genesis. That's why the Bible is inaccurate on Creation, the age of the Earth, and so on, because it was written by tribal people thousands of years ago, not by God. If God wrote it, it would be true today right? But science tells us it is not true. Therefore, God didn't write it. Why? Because God was invented by tribal people, not the other way around.

 

 

[Guest end3]

1 hour ago, Orbit said:

But you are ignoring the passage of time, and the way science corrects itself and changes with new discoveries, technologies, and ways of measuring. You can't use a model that says the sun goes around the earth any more; (which was a theological construct anyway); we now know that the earth goes around the sun. That's science. You can't ignore all the advances that have been made over time.

 

Are you trying to say "well that's how they understood the world to work in the past, given their limited instruments and methods for measuring things? That may well be true, but the fact remains that their conclusions, in the past, were often incorrect because of these limitations, and science progressed to change what we understand about how the world operates.

 

The problem is that what the Bible says reflects the explanations and observations (science is what you've been calling that, but it's not) of a time long past. That's because the Bible was written by Jews (the OT anyway) whose culture had observations that are not what we call science today. They observed, but they didn't do science. They made up myths to explain what they observed. Those myths became Genesis. That's why the Bible is inaccurate on Creation, the age of the Earth, and so on, because it was written by tribal people thousands of years ago, not by God. If God wrote it, it would be true today right? But science tells us it is not true. Therefore, God didn't write it. Why? Because God was invented by tribal people, not the other way around.

 

 

A couple points here O.  The sun will still rise and set over the horizon.  Also, there will be a point where today's scientific understanding will be invalid.  Again, in 1000 years, the sun will still rise and set over the horizon and our scientific understanding will have changed.   If I were pointing to the truth, guess which one I would point to. 

[Orbit]

11 minutes ago, end3 said:

A couple points here O.  The sun will still rise and set over the horizon.  Also, there will be a point where today's scientific understanding will be invalid.  Again, in 1000 years, the sun will still rise and set over the horizon and our scientific understanding will have changed.   If I were pointing to the truth, guess which one I would point to. 

The age of the Earth isn't going to change. It's been established. Perhaps we will get more accurate, but the difference is not going to be in favor of the version in the Bible. The way the universe came to be is not the way Genesis says, and while science may have competing theories about how it did originate, all of them point away from it happening in 6 days.  Science already shows the Biblical explanations for these things is impossible, and a "new" science that agrees with the Bible will not emerge, because the facts don't point that way. Your argument that our ability to make measurements with science will change is true, it will, but it will BUILD on existing discoveries, as science does--it won't go backwards. You can't seriously say the Earth was created in 6 days, or that some future "science" will say it was when there is a mountain of evidence that declares that to be impossible.

[sdelsolray]

40 minutes ago, end3 said:

A couple points here O.  The sun will still rise and set over the horizon.  Also, there will be a point where today's scientific understanding will be invalid.  Again, in 1000 years, the sun will still rise and set over the horizon and our scientific understanding will have changed.   If I were pointing to the truth, guess which one I would point to. 

 

And there will be a point where today's religious beliefs and dogmas will fall away into the dustbin of history.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, end3 said:

Primitive science was at one time, modern science.  And modern science may still be  used to predict or explain a sunrise. 

Which is another way of saying that science is self-correcting.  In other words, science admits when it's wrong and moves on in light of new evidence.  When was the last time the bible said, "Verily I say unto thee, OOPS!  I was wrong about that slavery thing"?

[bornagainathiest]

On 7/21/2017 at 11:50 PM, end3 said:

Look, this is an easy concept.  The comment you posted, "evidence-based reasoning applied logically to determine how reality really works”  has two parts.  One, the evidence based reasoning, and two, applied logically, to explain our reality.  The former is the experiment, the latter, the application.  I was not part of the experiment and therefore I could not have biased the study.  You get that, right?  Secondly, it's perfectly legal to use a study.....see the statement above......to logically apply it's findings.  You seem to be saying that one, I have biased the study, and two, that I am not applying this logically, but with bias.  You're welcome to your opinion, but there we are, and here we are. 

 

End,

 

"Logically apply it's findings..?"  

There is a problem if the 'logic' you use isn't the same logic that science itself uses.  As I'll illustrate for you.

 

1.  

Science's remit is to investigate the natural universe without invoking the super-natural.

If you use the findings of science to try and make connections with supernatural Christianity, then you are undoing that logic.  The logic under which those findings were made.

 

2.

Scientists do their work without bringing their private beliefs into it.

If you use their work to try and make connections with your private beliefs then you are undoing the logic under which they did their work.

 

3.

Before publishing, scientists submit their work for peer-review to try and eliminate their personal biases from it.

If you use their their work to try and make connections with your Christianity, according to your personal biases, then you are undoing the logic of their work.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[midniterider]

Scientific thought will and has produced some amazing creative innovations. 

Christianity discourages creative thought but rewards conformity.