How do you theists view science in all aspects?

[remez]

My post was merely to offer that not all religious people or religious groups are science deniers. In fact I know some very devout Christians who work in science and scientific fields.

That's an interesting manifestation, isn't it. There are a LOT of fundamentalists in engineering, including young-earthers. It's weird. They use science every day and then turn it off when they think they are in a non-science realm and ignore all that they really do know. Not sure if you've ever met one, but it's downright vertiginous.

As you know, I'm both. But I'm not a YEC.


YEC's don't turn off their science. They reason the science differently and actually support there YEC with science. I disagree with their scientific interpretation. But they do use science to support their views. I know for I have debated them.


Reminder. I think it is an arrogant to frame this debate as science vs religion. Think about it. That is a position of arrogance to which you default science to your worldview with out argument.


No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science.


You seem to be speaking from the assumption that theists oppose science. Some dumb ones do, I admit. But why do you (plural you) constantly portray your triumphs over them as reasoning that theism is wrong? More like child abuse to me.

 

[skepticalbip]

My post was merely to offer that not all religious people or religious groups are science deniers. In fact I know some very devout Christians who work in science and scientific fields.

That's an interesting manifestation, isn't it. There are a LOT of fundamentalists in engineering, including young-earthers. It's weird. They use science every day and then turn it off when they think they are in a non-science realm and ignore all that they really do know. Not sure if you've ever met one, but it's downright vertiginous.

As you know, I'm both. But I'm not a YEC.


YEC's don't turn off their science. They reason the science differently and actually support there YEC with science. I disagree with their scientific interpretation. But they do use science to support their views. I know for I have debated them.


Reminder. I think it is an arrogant to frame this debate as science vs religion. Think about it. That is a position of arrogance to which you default science to your worldview with out argument.


No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science.

That doesn't seem like a debate topic at all. It would be interesting to see what science you believe that supports the existence of a god - I know of none. Any idea that science does not support science would indicate real confusion as to what science is.

You seem to be speaking from the assumption that theists oppose science. Some dumb ones do, I admit. But why do you (plural you) constantly portray your triumphs over them as reasoning that theism is wrong? More like child abuse to me.

I don't think anyone here has suggested that theists do not accept some science. It is only those scientific findings that contradicts their religious beliefs that they don't accept.

 

[remez]

Any idea that science does not support science would indicate real confusion as to what science is.

Of course science can support science.

 

[skepticalbip]

Any idea that science does not support science would indicate real confusion as to what science is.

Of course science can support science.

Then your statement, "This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science." is rather confusing. Did you maybe mean, "This is a debate about which worldview is better."? If so then I would say that belief in science, as in experimentation and logical reasoning to determine how things work, has given us a damned easy and secure life as compared to before we began doing it. Belief in god may make some feel better, as in someone is watching over me, but contributed little in easing life and improving personal security. Someone driving across the African savanna armed with a rifle is less likely to be eaten by lions than someone walking across that savanna wearing ashes and sack cloth even though they may be praying the whole time.

I guess your statement boils down to what you mean by, "better".

 

[Kharakov]

No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science.

That doesn't seem like a debate topic at all. It would be interesting to see what science you believe that supports the existence of a god - I know of none. Any idea that science does not support science would indicate real confusion as to what science is.

Some science is the study of the products of the tripart-neutron that causes all forms. Some theism is the worship of the tripart-Deity that causes all forms.

It seems like one side is made up bullshit based on partial knowledge of the other side.... creating bullshit is definitely a property of whatever exists.


Unless we can verify that various fundamentals of nature are selected to make nature look designed, we're going to have to (unless we are intellectually dishonest) admit that the whole 666 carbon thing, 37 human body temp thing, and all the interrelated jokes (G= 66+ digits of pi bible leaves out =6.674.... which is 66 (books in bible) and 74 (G-D) in alphanumeric substitution). All the alphanumeric stuff can be explained... but the math is a bit coincidental. It can be explained too if all of taught science is untrue. Of course, I haven't checked any of the science on the internet.... with devices that cannot be programmed to give false readings in accordance to what I read on the internet.

Information inferiority is my position in life. ohh wellls.....

 

[remez]

Reminder. I think it is an arrogant to frame this debate as science vs religion. Think about it. That is a position of arrogance to which you default science to your worldview without argument.


No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science?

Any idea that science does not support science would indicate real confusion as to what science is.

Of course science can support science.

Then your statement, "This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science." is rather confusing.

Only because the rest of this…………………

Did you maybe mean, "This is a debate about which worldview is better."? If so then I would say that belief in science, as in experimentation and logical reasoning to determine how things work, has given us a damned easy and secure life as compared to before we began doing it. Belief in god may make some feel better, as in someone is watching over me, but contributed little in easing life and improving personal security. Someone driving across the African savanna armed with a rifle is less likely to be eaten by lions than someone walking across that savanna wearing ashes and sack cloth even though they may be praying the whole time.

I guess your statement boils down to what you mean by, "better".

…………seems to indicate
that you are assuming
that science itself
is a worldview.

No one here has suggested anything that radical. Although, I suspect some have a blind faith in that assumption.

Science is a formalized structure of reasoning we use to investigate reality. It is not a worldview. Worldviews are broadly the theisms atheisms, pantheisms, agnosticisms etc.

For further perspective…https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/worldviews.htm

Thus……………

Reminder. I think it is an arrogant to frame this debate as science vs religion. Think about it. That is a position of arrogance to which you default science to your worldview without argument.


No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science?

So specifically to this thread, I was trying to emphasize that point by posing the question.

Disclaimer time........ for those who get all offended that I assumed their pov...............
All of the above is clearly predicated on me REASONING from what you wrote.....specifically here.... that you assumed that science is a worldview. So please if that is not the case then by all means please clarify. If that is what you meant then it needs a defense.

 

[skepticalbip]

Then your statement, "This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science." is rather confusing.

Only because the rest of this…………………

Did you maybe mean, "This is a debate about which worldview is better."? If so then I would say that belief in science, as in experimentation and logical reasoning to determine how things work, has given us a damned easy and secure life as compared to before we began doing it. Belief in god may make some feel better, as in someone is watching over me, but contributed little in easing life and improving personal security. Someone driving across the African savanna armed with a rifle is less likely to be eaten by lions than someone walking across that savanna wearing ashes and sack cloth even though they may be praying the whole time.

I guess your statement boils down to what you mean by, "better".

…………seems to indicate
that you are assuming
that science itself
is a worldview.

No one here has suggested anything that radical. Although, I suspect some have a blind faith in that assumption.

Science is a formalized structure of reasoning we use to investigate reality. It is not a worldview. Worldviews are broadly the theisms atheisms, pantheisms, agnosticisms etc.

For further perspective…https://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/worldviews.htm

Thus……………

Reminder. I think it is an arrogant to frame this debate as science vs religion. Think about it. That is a position of arrogance to which you default science to your worldview without argument.


No. This is a debate about which worldview is better supported by the science?

So specifically to this thread, I was trying to emphasize that point by posing the question.

Disclaimer time........ for those who get all offended that I assumed their pov...............
All of the above is clearly predicated on me REASONING from what you wrote.....specifically here.... that you assumed that science is a worldview. So please if that is not the case then by all means please clarify. If that is what you meant then it needs a defense.

We apparently have very different ideas of what a worldview is. For me, a worldview is how one understands and makes sense of reality so, yes, the belief that consistently employing scientific methodology to make sense of the surroundings and events is the correct way to gain that understanding.

Some apparently have a worldview that understanding of reality is best achieved through appeal to authority - the church declares that goddidit therefore goddidit.

ETA:
You didn't address the question of what you mean by "better".

 

[remez]

Happy New Year

ETA:
You didn't address the question of what you mean by "better".

I did. You have a worldview (some form of materialism/naturalism). I have a worldview (some form of Christianity). Thus which is better supported by the science.

But be careful, you seem to think that there are scientific truths that are in conflict with Christianity, I do not. You assert that no science can SUPPORT Christianity, I believe it does. We discussed this years ago.

Some apparently have a worldview that understanding of reality is best achieved through appeal to authority - the church declares that goddidit therefore goddidit.

I do not. That would be fallacious.

 

[steve_bank]

Science conructs marhemetical midels that are testable. That is all it is.

If you have a version of Christianity that waves science into theology good for you if it satisfies. However the same can be said of a multiplicity new age mysticism which also waves the mystical and science. Depak Chopra is a master of it.

People write books interpreting QM. The fqact remains the Old Testamnet and New Testamnet have little objective information. If you are a literalist then god creted the unuiverse out of nothing. If you are not a literlist and do not belive the bible as written is not the inspired word of god you can spin it any way you like.

Which is what the diverse Christian sects do.

On can be a Christian sect of one individual interpretation, many are. One can pick and choose from Leviticus. Demonize gays but overlook the dietary retractions. One can reject the ban of divorce and fornication or not.

One can be sexually promiscuous and wear a cross around your neck. To me there is no such thing as a Christian, it is whatever one chooses to make it.

The polar opposite of science.