Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The American Scientific Affiliation


bornagainathiest

Recommended Posts

http://network.asa3.org/

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/AboutScience/index.html#About Science

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Apologetics/index.html

 

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/index.html

 

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/network.asa3.org/resource/resmgr/OriginsResults.pdf

.

.

.

Question.

If science is agnostic and is silent on the issues of religion and religious faith, why does this organization even exist?

 

Question.

If science is agnostic and is silent on the issues of religion and religious faith, how can members of the ASA who are scientists reconcile their agnostic work with their religious beliefs?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA.... my question is.... why is it the "American" scientific association, as opposed to the "Christian Scientific Association" Are all Americans Christians? And are all Scientists Christians?

 

No to both questions.

 

So then what gives them the right to call it the "American Scientific Association" 

 

"Question.

If science is agnostic and is silent on the issues of religion and religious faith, how can members of the ASA who are scientists reconcile their agnostic work with their religious beliefs?"

 

I don't think they can. Religion most often overrides science for an individual. Thus if something is discovered that contradicts their religious beliefs then they would have to work very hard to follow that conclusion at the expense of their religion. It's the same with Biblical Scholars or Archaeologists who sign statements of faith pre stating what they believe which means you cannot trust any conclusion as they have pre concluded any discovery.

 

And a big issue with this, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson would agree, is that such scientists upon wither coming up to a gap in knowledge, or having a conflict will immediately declare God, initiating an argument of God of the Gaps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an organization for the few who follow "intelligent design" imo. It's not a recognized and respected science organization. In fact, most people would think the 'ASA" refers to the American Sociological Association (asanet.org) which is a respected social science organization.

 

I would call this a Christian "front" organization, with a probably very small, wingnut membership.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Orbit said:

It's an organization for the few who follow "intelligent design" imo. It's not a recognized and respected science organization. In fact, most people would think the 'ASA" refers to the American Sociological Association (asanet.org) which is a respected social science organization.

 

I would call this a Christian "front" organization, with a probably very small, wingnut membership.

 

I wonder, Orbit.

 

Look who's going to be at the Merritt Island Outreach Event.  http://network.asa3.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=989428  Yep!   Him... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist)

 

And look who (or what) helps the ASA with funding.  http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/41564.pdf  These bozos... https://www.templeton.org/

 

Big names and big money.

 

Hmmm....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

I wonder, Orbit.

 

Look who's going to be at the Merritt Island Outreach Event.  http://network.asa3.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=989428  Yep!   Him... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross_(astrophysicist)

 

And look who (or what) helps the ASA with funding.  http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/41564.pdf  These bozos... https://www.templeton.org/

 

Big names and big money.

 

Hmmm....

And you don't think "other" science doesn't work the same way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, end3 said:

And you don't think "other" science doesn't work the same way? 

 

The "other" science being the bona fide one - that stays silent on matters that it cannot investigate?

 

Like religion, faith and the supernatural?

 

Is that the "other" science you meant?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh... and please respond to these three points, End.

 

I'd like to understand the 'logic' you're using.

 

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

 

  On 21/07/2017 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So these men are walking with Jesus and they ask why are they like they are.  And He essentially gives them two answers...  One, the sins of their fathers, and two, that with the new Covenant, the first won't be so prominent. 

 

Well science comes along 2000+ years later and says hey, look, your behavior affects you and also your offspring.....wow, who knew.  We always thought everything was reset at conception. 

 

I'm all ears BAA for you telling me why it's not logical for me to apply this scientific understanding to the human condition....or apply it to that scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, end3 said:

So these men are walking with Jesus and they ask why are they like they are.  And He essentially gives them two answers...  One, the sins of their fathers, and two, that with the new Covenant, the first won't be so prominent. 

 

Well science comes along 2000+ years later and says hey, look, your behavior affects you and also your offspring.....wow, who knew.  We always thought everything was reset at conception. 

 

I'm all ears BAA for you telling me why it's not logical for me to apply this scientific understanding to the human condition....or apply it to that scenario.

Matter of fact, I don't see that I'm undoing their findings at all, but certainly applying their logic, their scientific logic to humanity......  Again, let me know how I am violating the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, end3 said:

So these men are walking with Jesus and they ask why are they like they are.  And He essentially gives them two answers...  One, the sins of their fathers, and two, that with the new Covenant, the first won't be so prominent. 

 

Well science comes along 2000+ years later and says hey, look, your behavior affects you and also your offspring.....wow, who knew.  We always thought everything was reset at conception. 

 

I'm all ears BAA for you telling me why it's not logical for me to apply this scientific understanding to the human condition....or apply it to that scenario.

 

What you're doing in your last post End is the classic dodge known as shifting the burden of proof.

 

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/222/Shifting-of-the-Burden-of-Proof

 

Yesterday I said that I was interested in understanding the logic you're using in finding connections and correlations between science and your Christian faith.

 

But I'm not going to understand your logic for doing this, if I have to explain the opposite - why it isn't logical for you to do this.

 

It therefore falls to you to first explain why IT IS logical.

 

Please do so.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

The fact that children often display similar characteristics as their parents has its roots in both nature and nurture; and has been observed for centuries, possibly (probably) millenia.  It would not be surprising for ancient cultures to have made this same observation.  

 

But it is nothing more than the dynamic of nature and nurture (genetics and environment). If your father has brown eyes, you probably will too.  If your mother is bitchy, you probably will be too.  It is more likely that you will become like the people who raised you than the weird family down the street who cut their grass with scissors because they have bizarre ideas about carbon footprints.  However, their kids are more likely to grow into adults who trim their hedges with tin-snips than your kids, who, no doubt, grew up understanding the value of a 26" cutting strip powered by a Briggs and Straton motor.

 

None of this points to god, though.  It simply demonstrates that nature can often be highly predictable, especially when it comes to genetics.  And it demonstrates that rationally thinking individuals, in any given era, are capable of making accurate observations of the phenomena they encounter.  However, accurate observations do not always render accurate conclusions.

 

Example:  That boy has brown hair just like his daddy; god must have done it! The boy does have brown hair and so does his father; so the observation is accurate.  But to jump to the conclusion that god had anything to do with their hair color is simply not supported by the evidence.  Even concluding that genetics played a role might be inaccurate.  The boy could have brown hair because he observed his father dyeing his normally blonde hair and learned to do likewise; in which case, it was nurture that led to the boy's preferred coiffure.

 

The point, obviously, is that science can not, does not, jump to conclusions.  Nor can, or should, a scientist carry pre-conceived notions into the examination, or observation, of the evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The point, obviously, is that science can not, does not, jump to conclusions.  Nor can, or should, a scientist carry pre-conceived notions into the examination, or observation, of the evidence.

Ok, so we might have a cure for some particular disease but not apply the science to humanity? 

I agree that we must do everything to not bias an experiment, but aren't hypotheses pre-conceived notions?  Pretty sure they are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, end3 said:

Here is one article that logically makes the connection through science.  Mods, if I am violating some copy regulations, please feel free to take it down immediately.  Thanks.

http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetics-the-sins-of-the-father-1.14816

 

No End, it doesn't do that.

There is no connection between the content of this article and your Christian faith.  The title in full reads...

 

 Epigenetics: The sins of the father  

The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle.

 

Hughes makes no connection between epigenetics and sin for exactly the reason I've already explained.

Science cannot investigate the supernatural or the spiritual.  It can only investigate the physical and material.  It can only assign physical and material causes to any observed physical or material phenomenon.  Since it cannot observe the supernatural or spiritual, it therefore cannot assign a supernatural or spiritual cause to anything.  Where something is observed (like epigenetics) but the cause is unknown, then this will be plainly stated.  (As it is here.)   Why?  Because that's as far as science can go.  Hughes gets it exactly right.  She qualifies the status of the research with a 'may' and then declares that the cause remains unknown... 'remains a puzzle'.  

 

The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle.

 

Thus, cause and effect is not established by this article and therefore there is no tenable scientific connection between it and your Christian faith.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

No End, it doesn't do that.

There is no connection between the content of this article and your Christian faith.  The title in full reads...

 

 Epigenetics: The sins of the father  

The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle.

 

Hughes makes no connection between epigenetics and sin for exactly the reason I've already explained.

Science cannot investigate the supernatural or the spiritual.  It can only investigate the physical and material.  It can only assign physical and material causes to any observed physical or material phenomenon.  Since it cannot observe the supernatural or spiritual, it therefore cannot assign a supernatural or spiritual cause to anything.  Where something is observed (like epigenetics) but the cause is unknown, then this will be plainly stated.  (As it is here.)   Why?  Because that's as far as science can go.  Hughes gets it exactly right.  She qualifies the status of the research with a 'may' and then declares that the cause remains unknown... 'remains a puzzle'.  

 

The roots of inheritance may extend beyond the genome, but the mechanisms remain a puzzle.

 

Thus, cause and effect is not established by this article and therefore there is no tenable scientific connection between it and your Christian faith.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly more research will follow, but it sure is pointing that direction.  It's not unreasonable to make the connection...."sins" essentially being behaviors. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
14 minutes ago, end3 said:

Ok, so we might have a cure for some particular disease but not apply the science to humanity? 

I agree that we must do everything to not bias an experiment, but aren't hypotheses pre-conceived notions?  Pretty sure they are.

 

No, hypotheses are testable predictions based on observations.  Fuck, dude, that's Basic Science 101.

 

Not sure why we wouldn't apply a proven treatment for a disease, of it has, indeed, withstood peer review and the approval process.  Care to clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, end3 said:

Certainly more research will follow, but it sure is pointing that direction.  It's not unreasonable to make the connection...."sins" essentially being behaviors. 

 

Yes, more research will follow.

 

No, it is not pointing in that direction in scientific terms.  That's because science is silent on all religious, spiritual and supernatural matters.  

 

It is scientifically impossible (and therefore unreasonable) to make that connection.  That's because science is silent on all religious, spiritual and supernatural matters.  

 

Sin is a religious concept and therefore cannot be investigated by science. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read, digest, understand and accept this, End.

 

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters

 

Natural matters        
         
    In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education enacted a seemingly minor change in the state's science teaching standards. Up to that time, science had been defined in a standard way as "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." After the change, the definition for science became "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena." Scientists, science teachers, and many members of the general public objected to the change. As a result of their protests — and after the election of a new State Board of Education — in 2007, the definition was shifted back to the original. But what's the big deal? After all, an activity about seeking natural explanations had become an activity about seeking more adequate explanations of natural phenomena — what's the difference? A lot, it turns out.

 

image.png.c96865e1ee75ce9730defb2206d38712.png image.png.0ff62ecc7e6b1352fd5a456f752ffb0f.png image.png.f8f69fbeb21377a6d94383dee1d68661.png
 
At left, the Kansas State Board of Education's pre-2005 and post-2007 definition of "science." At right, the definition adopted in 2005 that was later rejected. The wording that caused all the fuss is highlighted.

 

   
 
The key issue here is that the prior definition restricted the types of causes that science can propose and investigate to natural ones, emphasizing that science cannot study supernatural explanations. To see why this is important, consider the fanciful idea that gravity is caused by undetectable, supernatural gnomes connecting everything in the universe together with invisible chewing gum. That might or might not be true, but under the standard definition, science can't study that explanation since it is supernatural. The definition with the 2005 change, however, allows any kind of explanation, including the magical and supernatural, into the realm of science so long as it deals with natural phenomena. According to the changed definition, the gnome-based explanation for gravity could be included in science class! Though we're obviously joking about the gnomes, the issue is a serious one. The shift in definition would have opened the doors of Kansas science classrooms to any group looking to deliver their views of supernatural causation to students in public schools and to pass those views off as legitimate science.

Modern science does not deal with supernatural explanations because they are not scientifically testable — in other words, there's no way to gather evidencethat would help us determine whether or not the explanations are accurate. In contrast to supernatural explanations, natural explanations generate specific expectations that we can compare to evidence from the natural world in order to determine whether the explanation is likely to be accurate. For example, an object's acceleration due to gravity increases as the mass of the object increases. That explanation for one aspect of gravitational attraction generates specific, testable expectations. If the idea were accurate, a baseball and a much heavier lead ball of the same size should fall at different rates, with the lead ball experiencing a larger acceleration. We can perform this test, and when we do, we will find that the expectation (falling at different rates) does not match our observations, providing evidence that the idea may be incorrect. Now, consider our far-fetched, supernatural explanation for gravity — gnomes with chewing gum. Would they attach the same strength of gum to a baseball and a lead ball? Would they attach extra strength gum to the lead ball, causing it to fall faster? Who knows what supernatural beings wielding magical chewing gum would choose to do? Regardless of what we observe when we drop the two balls, we can always imagine a way to chalk it up to the gnomes. Supernatural explanations, by their very character, cannot be tested with the methods of science. That doesn't mean that they are wrong; they are simply outside the realm of what science can legitimately investigate. Any effort to redefine science to include supernatural explanations is working at cross purposes to science's main goal: to build reliable knowledge about the natural world based on natural explanations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

The "other" science being the bona fide one - that stays silent on matters that it cannot investigate?

 

Like religion, faith and the supernatural?

 

Is that the "other" science you meant?

 

 

 

 

 

If you use science to debunk religion, like in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, is science staying silent on a matter it cannot investigate?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, midniterider said:

 

If you use science to debunk religion, like in Dawkins' book The God Delusion, is science staying silent on a matter it cannot investigate?

 

Good question, rider.

 

But I'm going to pass for now because this was a query I put to End3.

 

Which he hasn't answered yet.

 

Therefore, please maintain a holding pattern.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No, hypotheses are testable predictions based on observations.  Fuck, dude, that's Basic Science 101.

 

Not sure why we wouldn't apply a proven treatment for a disease, of it has, indeed, withstood peer review and the approval process.  Care to clarify?

Semantics:  predictions, assumptions, notions.  Not sure there is a stipulation on testable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Good question, rider.

 

But I'm going to pass for now because this was a query I put to End3.

 

Which he hasn't answered yet.

 

Therefore, please maintain a holding pattern.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

No problem. And I know you mean science doesnt really investigate supernatural stuff. I'm just having some fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, midniterider said:

 

No problem. And I know you mean science doesnt really investigate supernatural stuff. I'm just having some fun.

 

:3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bornagainathiest said:

 

Good question, rider.

 

But I'm going to pass for now because this was a query I put to End3.

 

Which he hasn't answered yet.

 

Therefore, please maintain a holding pattern.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

You're going to have to re-ask the question BAA...not sure which one you're on now.  With that said, yes, there appears to be connections to behavior/nurture, but the only connection to the supernatural would be the statement being attributed to Jesus.  Your point is noted, and I'm ok with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, end3 said:

You're going to have to re-ask the question BAA...not sure which one you're on now.  With that said, yes, there appears to be connections to behavior/nurture, but the only connection to the supernatural would be the statement being attributed to Jesus.  Your point is noted, and I'm ok with that.

 

Please clarify End, I'm not following you.

 

 

"...yes, there appears to be connections to behavior/nurture..."    

 

Are you talking about only scientific connections? 

 

 

 

"...but the only connection to the supernatural would be the statement being attributed to Jesus..."  

 

Only from the scientific to the supernatural?  Is that what you mean?  Could you please restate what Jesus said?  Thanks.

 

 

 

I've made several points across several messages in the last hour or so.  Could you please specify which one you've noted and that you're ok with?  Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what midniterider was referring to.

 

  22 hours ago, end3 said:

And you don't think "other" science doesn't work the same way? 

 

BAA replied...

 

The "other" science being the bona fide one - that stays silent on matters that it cannot investigate?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.