given modern weaponry to the Crusaders or to the Spanish Inquisition let's just see how much higher their body count would goReply:
There are many nominal Christians, but they do not follow Christ's commands. What, if all people that call themselves Christians would actually do as Christ said ??
The Bible's first commandhttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2844-the-bible-s-first-command
“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.
It is evident that if humanity would follow these commands, we would live in a better world.
What good has the christian faith brought to ushttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1452-what-good-has-the-christian-faith-brought-to-usKate:
If you're exploring the nature of the universe putting aside all bias is how you do it right the evidence isn't pointing to God.Reply:
Well, repeating an assertion does not make it true. I give you just one example which demonstrates in a powerful way why i disagree with you:When you see a blueprint of a factory, with the precise instructions to make all machines, subparts, how to assemble each machine, interconnect them into production lines, organized production compartments, gates to permit the right materials to get in, and the end products go through error check and repair, and export, and then see the functional factory-build precisely upon the blueprint which you saw previously, but have no clue of how both, the blueprint, and the factory, came to be: What is the obvious answer: a) That an intelligent team of engineers, machine designers etc. made the project, and skilled, intelligent labour workers, carpenters, masons, electricians, machine builders etc. constructed the factory, or b) that natural forces somehow made the blueprint, and random unguided forces brought the building materials together, and by luck, the factory was assembled precisely based on the blueprint instructions, and started its production ? orc) you have no way to conclude anything meaningful, and feel justify to say: " I don't know" ? Someone wrote that following argument signals the death knell of atheism.From Wikipedia“A Death Knell was the ringing of a bell immediately after a death to announce it. Historically it was the second of three bells rung around death; the first being the "Passing Bell" to warn of impending death, and the last was the "Lych Bell", or "Corpse Bell", which survives today as the Funeral toll.”The factory maker argument1. Blueprints, instructional information and master plans, and the making of complex machines and factories upon these are both always tracked back to an intelligent source which made them for purposeful, specific goals. 2. Biological cells are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive design of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks.3. The Blueprint and instructional information stored in DNA and epigenetics, which directs the making of biological cells and organisms - the origin of both is, therefore, best explained by an intelligent designer which created life for his own purposes.Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”DNA Is Called The Blueprint Of Life: Here’s WhyOCTOBER 26, 2017DNA is called the blueprint of life because it is the instruction manual to create, grow, function and reproduce life on Earth similar to a blueprint of a house. 10https://sciencetrends.com/dna-called-blueprint-life-heres/The Molecular Fabric of Cells BIOTOL, B.C. Currell and R C.E Dam-Mieras (Auth.)Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories. Each cell type takes in its own set of chemicals and making its own collection of products. The range of products is quite remarkable and encompass chemically simple compounds such as ethanol and carbon dioxide as well as the extremely complex proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and secondary products. Furthermore: Self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and achievement, far from being realized by man-made factories. Self-replication had to emerge and be implemented first, which raises the unbridgeable problem that DNA replication is irreducibly complex. Evolution is not a capable driving force to make the DNA replicating complex, because evolution depends on cell replication through the very own mechanism we try to explain. It takes proteins to make DNA replication happen. But it takes the DNA replication process to make proteins. That’s a catch 22 situation.Chance of intelligence to set up life: 100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce functional proteins on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:1 in 10^200.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.Kate:
as opposed to what faith how can faith possibly lead you to facts when it relies so heavily on feelings rather than testable falsifiable data on which experiments can be runReply:
The opposit of naturalism/materialism is not faith, but intelligent design / creationism. It takes faith for both accounts, that is, that only natural means explain our existence, and intelligen design doing so. Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.
1. Accepting the best explanation maximises the robustness of one’s position relative to accepting any other available explanatory hypothesis.
2. It is reasonable to maximise the robustness of one’s position.
3. One of the explanatory hypotheses should be accepted.
4. Thus: It is reasonable to accept the best explanation. 6Historical sciences, and methodological naturalismhttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1692-historical-sciences-and-methodological-naturalism
January 9, 1997
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method
Historical research is sometimes said to be inferior to experimental research. Using examples from diverse historical disciplines, this paper demonstrates that such claims are misguided.
Richard C. Lewontin who is a well-known geneticist and an evolutionist from Harvard University claims that he is first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist. He confesses;
“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”(Lewontin 1997)
Materialism regards itself as scientific, and indeed is often called “scientific materialism,” even by its opponents, but it has no legitimate claim to be part of science. It is, rather, a school of philosophy, one defined by the belief that nothing exists except matter, or, as Democritus put it, “atoms and the void.” 2
Methodological naturalism is necessary for science because science requires that as a precondition of investigating natural things. It is not necessary to elucidate historical facts however. History does not investigate by empirically determining anything. Although history does seek to answer questions about the past, it requires only that the past is rational. Rational simply means that there is a reason. So if something did happen that were an act of God in the past, then as long as that act had a reason, history can investigate it.
The specific complex information of living systems as, well as fine-tuning agents of a life-permitting universe and immaterial truths, etc have causal materialistic dead ends. However, intelligent design is a current observable mechanism to explain the design, thus are an adequate simple causal mechanism to explain these realities of our universe, its fine tuning improbabilities, information, immaterial abstracts, etc. Intelligence can and is a causal agent in the sciences such as forensics, archeology engineering, etc., thus there is no reason to rule out a priori the unobserved designer scientifically. We only rule him out by philosophical or anti-religious objection, which anybody has the free will right to do, but it isn't necessarily true or right to do so, and we can't use science to do so, if we are unbiased, correctly using the discipline. Additionally, to argue non-empirical causes are inadequate would rule out many would be mainstream secular materialistic hypothetical causes as well. It then becomes a matter of preference to the type of causes one is willing to accept and one's preferred worldview has a lot to do with that.
There are basically 3 possible causing agents of origins and the universe as a whole:
1. The universe and the physical laws: an intelligent creator, or random unguided natural events
2. The fine-tuning of the universe and the origin of life: an intelligent creator, random unguided natural events, and physical necessity
3. Biodiversity: above three, and evolution
This result means that intelligent design cannot be removed entirely from consideration in the historical sciences. They are a division of history rather than science, and what applies to history, in general, applies to them. However, evidence must be found to support them.Kate:
ok if you insist that we teach supernatural possibilities to kids which one do we chooseReply:
The first question in a solid epistemological framework is to ask, what makes more sense : A creator or none ? Which God is not relevant at this stage, and neither to science, nor the hypothesis of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is sciencehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2313-intelligent-design-is-science
Claim: Science is the study of nature on nature’s own terms, and thus cannot study the supernatural. The absence of a transcendent supernatural deity is completely untestable on an empirically scientific level. A transcendent intelligent agency certainly makes sense, but that is empirically testable because the transcendent intelligent agent is not empirical.
Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by undirected natural process) is evidence for design. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable. Based on a logical evaluation of evidence, we can conclude that a design theory is probably true (if all non-design theories seem highly implausible) or is probably false (if any non-design theory seems highly plausible). A design inference does not claim non-design is impossible and design is certain, it only claims that design seems more probable based on scientific evidence and logic. This type of probability-based conclusion is consistent with the logic of science in which proof is always impossible, even though scientists can develop a logically justified confidence in the truth or falsity of a theory.
A number of evolutionary propagandists have claimed that creation is not scientific because it is supposedly untestable. But in the same paragraph they will claim, ‘scientists have carefully examined the claims of creation science, and found that ideas such as the young Earth and global Flood are incompatible with the evidence.’ But obviously creation cannot have been examined (tested) and found to be false if it’s ‘untestable’! 3
The scientific methods used in a design investigation are also used in historical sciences like geology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, and astronomy. Many arguments against design are also arguments against every historical science. But scientists have developed methods for coping with the limitations of historical data, and historical science can be authentically scientific.
Intelligent Design proposes the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by the deliberate creative act of an intelligent cause.
One of the most common charges that intelligent design (ID) opponents, Advocates of methodological naturalism, is that the theory of intelligent design is inherently unscientific. that ID is not real science. They will say that a real scientific theory must be testable against the empirical world, must make predictions, must be falsifiable, must be explanatory by reference to natural law, and so forth. They point to ID and say that it doesn’t meet all of these criteria, and therefore ID must not be science. But is that true? Are there really criteria that define whether something is science or not science? Well, if you ask philosophers of science (the academic experts on this question), they will tell you that no such criteria exists. Every attempt at formulating an ironclad set of criteria has ended up accidentally excluding what scientists consider to be legitimate scientific fields. There is no set of agreed-upon criteria for separating science from pseudo-science; it just doesn’t exist among philosophers of science. The question of whether something is science or non-science is both intractable and uninteresting. The real issue is not whether a theory is ‘scientific’ according to some abstract definition, but where the scientific evidence leads to, and how it is best explained. In other words, what mechanism explains best X. This procedure is obvious, but the attempt at demarcating between science and non-science is a favorite way and artifact of ID opponents. By calling ID non-scientific, they never to examine if the proposed causal mechanism is more compelling than theirs.Kate:
it's not the fault of science or nature that what's described in most holy texts doesn't match what we seeReply:
But materialism does ?Genesis, vs secular science explanations of origins
One common argument seen often spouted by uninformed atheists is that upon the advance of science, the gaps where God can hide are shrinking. The contrary is the case. The more science advances, the gaps where naturalism can hide, are shrinking, and only answers by proposing intelligence as causal agency, is intellectually satisfying.
Genesis V1 and V16 :
explains the origin of the universe, stars, and the earth.
V9 explains the separation of the land from the ocean
V11 explains the origin of vegetation and plants
V24: explains the origin of animals
V26 explains the origin of humankind, male and female
We have in Genesis a COMPLETE account of origins.
How does science based on naturalism explain all these things?
Science does NOT have conclusive, compelling explanations of:
- The origin and cause of the universe, nor its fine-tuning. All that proponents of naturalism can do is speculate in regard to eventual, imagined scenarios, or admit ignorance. The usual explanations are
- virtual particles
- eternal universes
- multiverses, bubble universes, M-Theory etc.
- Stars: the accretion theory proposed an impossible scenario, namely that gas exercised gravitational forces and clumped together to form stars. It has never been observed, and his highly speculative
- the separation of the land, and oceans: Science has no idea nor good explanations why and how it happened, or where the water on earth came from
- the origin of life: there are not credible naturalistic hypotheses. Rather than closing the gap, scientific advance exposes the impossibility.
- The origin of plants: explained by Darwins Theory, and the highly speculative idea that prokaryotic cells engulfed another cell, and by endosymbiosis, eukaryotic cells emerged. There are several reasons why that is not compelling. Plants use photosynthesis as energy source. Oxygenic photosynthesis has no known evolutionary precursors, and is extremely complex and requires several parts that are essential. No scientist has compelling answers how photosynthesis evolved. Only speculation
- Animals: Darwins Theory is every day more under attack by the fact that science reveals, that the genome alone does not define body plans. Epigenetic codes are determinant, and cannot be explained by natural selection, drift, or gene flow.
- Humans: science has no explanation for the origin of sex, nor conscience, nor language, nor morality, nor why humans have inherent dignity, value, or meaning.
We have observed atoms having forced that keep them together. We have not explained what that force is, and why it persists. It is assumed to persist for various reasons, but no cause has ever been found, scientifically. The very mechanisms of life: DNA, replication of DNA and other microbiological processes have been observed, but never explained, because their very activity is driven by data processes, which have no known independent cause or source. The force of gravity has been observed, characterized, and tested, but it’s source of energy has never been explained through naturalistic processes or observation. Logic and mathematics themselves have been analyzed, and understood, but what is never explained through naturalistic or materialistic methods or science is why they exist, or what enforces them. They “just are”, and that assumption is the biggest gap materialists make as they seek to explain everything without God. The very foundations of reasoning are the concepts that things are repeatable, and therefore testable and predictable, yet there is no explanation for why things are consistent, from a materialistic perspective. Believers in the one true God, on the other hand have answers for all of those questions, and it is because we have answers to those questions that we can advance scientific understanding and practical application to our universe and to daily life. There is nothing in the theistic worldview that negates or limits scientific discovery, because we expect a consistent level of logic, predictability, order, material processes and that God wants us to intelligently utilize our world, the senses and brains we are endowed with. We discover laws of physics, math and science, and understand they exist and persist because there is a lawgiver. They are there for our benefit, and we are free to discover them and utilize them. To suggest otherwise is merely a statement from ignorance. Ignorance of the existence of God.Atheists: what they must believe in order to refute creationism
The extreme skepticism and incredulity towards one explanation of origins ( theism) must lead automatically to the extreme credulity and gullibility of the opposite explanation ( philosophical naturalism ). The cop-out of not knowing about origins is unjustified wilful and purposeful ignorance upon the overwhelming knowledge that the scientific advance and inquiry has permitted us to gain, and upon which we can understand the world and reality, how the cosmos and biology works, better than ever before. That permits us to make secure inferences about historical events. Playing Sherlock Holmes was never as easy as today. Agnosticism is not justified.
If proponents of naturalism want to convince that strong atheism or the philosophical view that naturalism explains our existence better than theism, they should provide positive convincing reasons, why theists do good to believe as follows:
About the universe, its beginning and fine-tuning:
1. The Universe popped up out of nothing or is eternal
2. The physical laws were always there, nothing set them up
3. The universe produced the number of electrons equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 37th power out of a lucky accident. If it were not so, galaxies, stars, and planets would never form (because electromagnetic forces would so overwhelm gravitational forces).
4. Quarks and anti-quarks form via matter-antimatter pair production. Because of their nature, these particles instantly annihilate each other. However, during the creation of the universe, a slight asymmetry in this pair production resulted in approximately 1 extra particle of matter for every 10 billion produced. It turns out that this 1 in 10 billion ratio of “leftover particles” happens to be the exact amount of mass necessary for the formation of stars, galaxies, and planets. As much as 2 in 10 billion, and the universe would have just been filled with black holes. As little as 0.5 in 10 billion, and there wouldn’t have been enough density for galaxies to form. This was a lucky accident.
5. Upon the finetuning by a happy accident of the cosmological constant, the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 10^123. That is 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
5. Stars and planets exist. That happened by clump of gas upon gravitational forces, despite never proven that it is possible.
6. The right distance of the sun from the galactic center, its right position in the spiral arm, size and force of gravity of planet earth, water, the right atmosphere, right amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, rare earth minerals which make life possible, right size of the sun, its right distance from earth, the ozone layer, fundamental for life, the earths right magnetic field which protects it from deadly rays from the sun, the right tilt of earth which permits the seasons providing a balancing effect, a large, right-sized moon that stabilizes the rotation axis of its host planet, yielding a more stable, life-friendly climate, tides made possible through the moon, life essential, all just happened by a lucky accident.
the origin of life:
7. The minimal number of proteins and a proteome, metabolome, and genome emerged through enough time and biochemical trials by a lucky accident.
- According to the latest estimation of a minimal protein set for the first living organism, the requirement would be about 560 proteins, this would be the absolute minimum to keep the basic functions of a cell alive.
- According to the Protein-length distributions for the three domains of life, there is an average between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells of about 400 amino acids per protein. 8
- Each of the 400 positions in the amino acid polypeptide chains could be occupied by any one of the 20 amino acids used in cells, so if we suppose that proteins emerged randomly on prebiotic earth, then the total possible arrangements or odds to get one which would fold into a functional 3D protein would be 1 to 20^400 or 1 to 10^520. A truly enormous, super astronomical number.
- Since we need 560 proteins total to make a first living cell, we would have to repeat the shuffle 560 times, to get all proteins required for life. The probability would be therefore 560/10520. We arrive at a probability far beyond of 1 in 10^100.000 ( A proteome set with 239 proteins yields odds of approximately 1/10^119614 )
8. Cells are complex factories, full of molecular machines, and assembly lines. Randomness produced these factories, by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.
9. Cells use various codes and hierarchical levels of information, based on complex hardware/information processing machines ( computers ). Unguided forces produced these blueprints....
10. Luck or random unguided chemical forces produced DNA with the highest information storage density physically possible.
11. Cells use metabolic pathways and literally manufacturing and production assembly lines. Saint luck did the feat.
12. Cells are self-replicating. DNA replication is irreducibly complex. The biochemical lottery hit the jackpot.
13. Cells have error detection and check mechanisms. Life could not have "taken off" without them. They just appeared to be there when needed.
14. Cells require homeostasis. It just happened.
16. There is consciousness. The brain somehow produced it to give a survival advantage.
17. There are objective moral values. Nobody created them.
18. Language, logic, reasoning, free will, and moral values are not grounded in physics. They just appeared through evolution, to give a survival advantage.
19. Evolution accounts for the origin of 116 distinct language families.
20. Independent thought emerged through Darwin's idea.
21. Matter produced free will.
Dear atheist, please let me know, why that should make sense to me. And why it makes sense to you. If you can, i might become incredulous towards the God hypothesis. As long as you can't, i prefer to remain incredulous in your eyes.Kate:
every supernatural event that could prove religion dried up as soon as we could really put it to the testReply:
What we can test, is if abiogenesis could have occured, if it could be repeated in the laboratory. But all we have, is a big failure.Observation:
Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines, and make exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware and store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store large amounts of specified instructional complex information through codes and languages, and which are constructed in an interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.Hypothesis (Prediction):
Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures that perform specific functions -- indicating high levels of Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.Experiment:
Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome. Additionally, it has been found, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely Splicing Codes, Metabolic Codes, Signal Transduction Codes, Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes, and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kind of irreducibly complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimal number of parts and complex inter-wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knockout experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.Conclusion:
Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent.
creation is a possible explanation and should never have been excluded up lowly in Sciences dealing with historical events but consider it and compare side aside to natural explanationsKate:
you think it wasn't ?Reply
No, it was not, until the late 19th century. Philosophical naturalism began strongly to be promoted by the X Club
The X Club was a dining club of nine men who supported the theories of natural selection and academic liberalism in late 19th-century England. Thomas Henry Huxley was the initiatorInfluence of Christianity in sciencehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1493-influence-of-christianity-in-science
The Christian doctrine of creation gave the impetus to scientific discovery in Western Christendom in the first place, because it said that the universe was freely created by God as totally distinct from God, and is therefore contingent,
If you're talking about many of the first orphanages, all of our major Ivy League universities in fact all but one the first 123 colleges and universities in colonial America, almost every charitable organization i.e. the Red Cross, Nursing (Florence Nightingale), the abolition of slavery in both the Roman world and the European Slave Trade, ALL of the first sciences including the scientific method (as we know it today), Kepler, Newton, Pasteur, Boyle, Maxwell, Steno, Martel, ect; free enterprise and work ethic (ethics in general), wherever there are starving people, there are Christians feeding, wherever there are homeless, Christians are building shelters, in Rome during a plague Christians would not flee but tend for the sick and dying, the greatest contributions to music, literature, and art who brought them to music theory and even revolutionizing literature as we know it today are all contributed to Christians and Christianity.
Christianity Gave Birth To Science – Dr. Henry Fritz Schaefer – video
The History of Christian Education in America
Excerpt: The first colleges in America were founded by Christians and approximately 106 out of the first 108 colleges were Christian colleges. In fact, Harvard University, which is considered today as one of the leading universities in America and the world was founded by Christians. One of the original precepts of the then Harvard College stated that students should be instructed in knowing God and that Christ is the only foundation of all “sound knowledge and learning.”
Bruce Charlton’s Miscellany – October 2011
Excerpt: I had discovered that over the same period of the twentieth century that the US had risen to scientific eminence it had undergone a significant Christian revival. ,,,The point I put to (Richard) Dawkins was that the USA was simultaneously by-far the most dominant scientific nation in the world (I knew this from various scientometic studies I was doing at the time) and by-far the most religious (Christian) nation in the world. How, I asked, could this be – if Christianity was culturally inimical to science?
The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped (the 17 year slide in SAT scores with the removal of prayer from school) – David Barton – video
AMERICA: To Pray Or Not To Pray – David Barton – graphs corrected for population growth
you can see the dramatic difference, of the SAT scores for private Christian schools compared to public schools, at this following site;
Aliso Viejo Christian School – SAT 10 Comparison Report
religion tells us something is so then tells us to not check to just take it on faithReply:
Not at all. Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith:https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1840-unreasonable-blind-and-reasonable-faith
The creation-evolution debate is not religion versus science or the Bible versus science, it's about good science versus bad science. Likewise, it's not faith versus reason, its about reasonable faith, versus unreasonable faith.
Any worldview is limited in that it does not grant absolute truth, but only yields degrees of probability or likelihood. Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability of a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, theology, and philosophy. After careful examination, all we can do is come to instant-deduction to the best explanation.
There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believeBlind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believeReasonable Faith
Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.
The pages of Scripture support the notion of “reasonable faith”. Perhaps this is why so many Christians are evidentialists and have applied this evidential view of the world to their professional investigations (I’ve assembled a partial list of some of these Christian investigators in a variety of fields). Christianity has not stunted the intellectual growth of these men and women (as Anais Nin seemed to insinuate), but has instead provided the foundation for their exploration. For these investigators, the evidential nature of the Christian Worldview was entirely consistent (and even foundational) to their investigative pursuits in every aspect of God’s creation. Christianity did not cause them to “cease to grow” but, instead, provided the philosophical foundation for their investigations.Kate:
if it turned out that there is a God we could find him and verify his existenceReply: Why it`s an irrational demand to ask proofs of his existencehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2717-godwhy-its-an-irrational-demand-to-ask-proofs-of-his-existencemin. 1:18 Asking for verifiable proofs of Gods existenceCommon atheist fallacies: exposed !!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK99BsNc2Ko&t=3054sDemand: No one has ever produced any verifiable evidence for any God. All the religions make that claim for their specific God. Well, I want some proof, hard verifiable proof.Answer: Only people with little or no eduaction in methods of how to establish a sound & solid epistemological framework to investigate origins ask for verifiable proof of Gods existence.This is one of the most common demands of Atheists and mentioned as reason for unbelief until the burden of proof is met. All which such demand demonstrates is the lack of epistemological sophistication of the unbeliever. Usually, this challenge goes hand in hand with the claim that " There is no evidence of God's existence ". What they want to say however is, that there is no empirical proof.When an atheist, an agnostic, or someone holding a mix of agnosticism and atheism makes the claim that there is no proof of Gods existence, he immediately and implicitly admits there is no proof that the natural world is all there is, either. Otherwise, he would say: We know the natural world is all there is. Here is the proof. For that, IMHO, he would have to be all-knowing. Which he is not. He chooses that second option based on no reason at all.Professor Ulrich Becker** (High energy particle physics, MIT):"How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any answer ever given."Being cannot come from non-being. Contingent existence is evidence of a necessary Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.The probability of God is not to be dismissed. Nobody can prove with reason anything except potentialities, probabilities and possibilities. Reason is not the science of reality when it ventures beyond the scope of physical. It can only imply.The seeker must also be willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. He needs to be willing to put all his prejudices and bias aside as much as possible, and permit an entirely and exclusively rational approach, based on scientific reasoning and logic, that is, doing the observation, elaborating a hypothesis, testing when possible, and getting well-based and rationally justifiable conclusions. When dealing with the observation of the natural world, the question is, what mechanism explains best the origin of X. That is not the same as to ask, how something works, which is what empirical science deals with. That helps and advances the question of how something came to be when its mechanistic ( physicochemical ) working is known, and what contributes to that. Back in Darwins time, 150 years ago, there was no knowledge about the complexity of the biochemical reality, intracellular action and molecular world. Today, we have advanced understanding on that, and every day that passes, that knowledge adds up. The first question to answer is not which God, but what cause and mechanism best explains our existence. There are basically just two options. Either a creative conscious intelligent supernatural powerful creative agency above the natural world acted and was involved, or not. That's it. All answers can be divided in this two basic options and categories. While the atheist affirms, no God was required, the theist claims, God is necessary. Some atheists have argued that the can be many explanations, we just do not know them yet. I disagree. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.The next step a seeker needs to elucidate is: What signs point to design, rather than non-design? What can be clearly attributed to the action of a conscious intelligent agency? ( or agencies - plural ? ) Then he has to move forward to actually understand how our natural world works. The better understanding and education, the better. Unfortunately, this is a huge hurdle, and many are too lazy to spend time to actually understand the natural world and prefer to see what fits best what they want, and then search for who provides the answers they want to be true ( bias is a big factor contributing to self-delusion ). That is a common approach by atheists. They prefer to rely on the claims of the four horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Dennet, Shermer and Harris, and the pope of all, Darwin, rather than spending time and looking into the evidence by themselves. All they do, behaving in that manner, is disrespecting themselves, putting their souls at risk to be deluded by their own wishes and faulty approach, and if they are wrong, losing their eternity with God.A smart epistemological approach about origins of our existence goes as this:1. Asking: what is ? what exists? Answer: X2. Asking: what are the possible mechanisms to explain the origin of X? Answer: Y and Z ( and eventually, other causes )3. Is X better explained by Y or Z?4. Concluding Y or Z, depending on where the evidence leads to.5. Moving forward, and trying to identify as accurately as possible the precise identity of the cause, if it is an intelligent agent.6. Number 1 and 2 is a continuing exercise of science, philosophy, and theology. Upon the advance of understanding, the conclusion is eventually re-evaluated, and changed, if sufficient reasons exist. Upon my understanding, intelligent design/creationism tops naturalism - materialism as best case-adequate answer in regards to origins:125 reasons to believe in Godhttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-godA cumulative case for the God of the biblehttps://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-the-god-of-the-bible" There is no evidence for God " Really ??!!http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1440-there-is-no-evidence-for-god