Religion = Child; Science = Adult

[Keith&Co.]

I challenged your rationality for offering something so fringe to represent theism.

Yes. You asserted that i only used fringe groups to make my observation. I pointed out that the case was not limited to fringe groups. And you want to force me to stick to the Flat Earthers as my only case.

Your fringe group added nothing to your support because it wasn’t a theistic concept.

Aw, bullshit. The FE's take their position exactly because they find scripture to support it.
If you're not going to play fair, then just fuck off.

You are the one pretending you didn’t conflate Geocentrism and flat earthers.

Oh, no, I did not conflate them. I quoted your 'fringe' comment and replied with Galileo exactly because his science and the Faith were not compatible. That's the argument. You're trying really hard to shape my argument into something more easily defeated. I think there's a word for that...

Eh. Bored.

 

[bigfield]

I’m the one observing that theism accepts the vast majority of science.

Theists only accept scientific facts and theories that do not conflict with their religious beliefs. For instance, young Earth creationists do not accept the scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old because that science disagrees with their religious convictions.

Theism is incompatible with science because religious beliefs are sometimes unreasonably maintained in the face of contrary evidence. In order for theism to be compatible with science, theists must be willing to discard their religious convictions whenever those beliefs are contradicted by scientific facts and theory.

 

[LordKiran]

The 'majority' of science, huh?
So what are the quibbles and what are they based upon?

but is it rational to hold up the fringe as representative of a larger worldview?

Galieo was not tried by the 'fringe.'

Galieo was not tried because his findings contradicted the church, this is a common misconception. He was tried because he tried to interpret the bible in place of the church. He transgressed against the church by trying to assert his religious views alongside his observations and scientific findings and so they smote him.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I’m the one observing that theism accepts the vast majority of science.

Theists only accept scientific facts and theories that do not conflict with their religious beliefs. For instance, young Earth creationists do not accept the scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old because that science disagrees with their religious convictions.

Theism is incompatible with science because religious beliefs are sometimes unreasonably maintained in the face of contrary evidence. In order for theism to be compatible with science, theists must be willing to discard their religious convictions whenever those beliefs are contradicted by scientific facts and theory.

I don't know what "vast majority of science" is meant to convey. The theists I know discard the vast majority of science. They believe in ghosts, souls, angels, flying zombies and supernaturalism, whatever that is. They hold that a spaceman with magic powers can abracadabra anything into existence and that their bodies are all going to magically come together and go live in the sky with the spaceman long after they are dead.

It just seems to me that mainstream theism is forced to live within a world ruled by naturalism and scientific knowledge, but they hardly accept that.

I watch mainstream theists go into a special building where they sing songs to their invisible magic spaceman. They do this once a week generally speaking. When they've completed their good luck rituals they get back into their cars and turn the key and the engine starts, all according to sound scientific principle. If they really accepted mainstream science they wouldn't leave their homes and drive their cars to magic buildings to sing their songs and even eat their spaceman by changing food into him and bringing him back to life. If they accepted science they would stay home because they would know what they are doing is stupid and laughable.

 

[remez]

Difference between theists and scientist is that scientists are imited to state what actually is true whike theists can say whatever they wants.

Given that assertion.
When did you become a theist?

 

[remez]

Oh, no, I did not conflate them. I quoted your 'fringe' comment and replied with Galileo

But no one today, including me, would consider Galileo as fringe. So your reply of Galileo in that context was at best a non-sequitur, although to me it still reads as a conflation. But let’s drop the fringe issue and focus on Galileo for there is some substance here……..

and replied with Galileo exactly because his science and the Faith were not compatible. That's the argument.

Your wording is interesting here. I’m asserting that HIS science and HIS theism were obviously compatible and THAT is my argument. I’m certainly not asserting that all theists and all scientists agreed with him at the time. He helped settle the competing issues in both camps. A similar debate of OEC and YEC still remains unsettled today among the theists whereas you skeptics are certain of an old earth. I personally believe that the YEC are interpreting the science and the scripture incorrectly.

 

[remez]

Theists only accept scientific facts and theories that do not conflict with their religious beliefs. For instance, young Earth creationists do not accept the scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old because that science disagrees with their religious convictions.

More accurately they are misinterpreting the science on this one point, IMO. YEC’s still agree with the fast majority of operational science. The issue of origin science seems to be the only sliver of science that is in contention.

In order for theism to be compatible with science, theists must be willing to discard their religious convictions whenever those beliefs are contradicted by scientific facts and theory.

I agree and submit to you the Galileo incident as proof that this has happened. Back in the 1600's there were many theists and scientists that held to a geocentric model. Today I know of no thiests that hold that view.

But there is a major caveat to my agreement. Not all science is settled. You have to rationally admit that science is evolving. Therefore there is still room for disagreement.

 

[bigfield]

More accurately they are misinterpreting the science on this one point, IMO. YEC’s still agree with the fast majority of operational science. The issue of origin science seems to be the only sliver of science that is in contention.

"Origin science" covers a variety of disciplines. Geology, biology, cosmology and palaeontology to name a few disciplines where creationists dispute a variety of evidence.

But there is a major caveat to my agreement. Not all science is settled. You have to rationally admit that science is evolving. Therefore there is still room for disagreement.

Do you have an example of a reasonable disagreement between science and religion?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your wording is interesting here. I’m asserting that HIS science and HIS theism were obviously compatible and THAT is my argument. I’m certainly not asserting that all theists and all scientists agreed with him at the time. He helped settle the competing issues in both camps. A similar debate of OEC and YEC still remains unsettled today among the theists whereas you skeptics are certain of an old earth. I personally believe that the YEC are interpreting the science and the scripture incorrectly.

How were Galileo's science and religion compatible? I can state that I am 19 feet tall, so how is that compatible with my being 6 feet tall? Or does that simply make me another religious loon?

 

[remez]

"Origin science" covers a variety of disciplines. Geology, biology, cosmology and palaeontology to name a few disciplines where creationists dispute a variety of evidence.

I agree. Disputing the evidence is a critical requirement of any epistemology. Scientists and theists dispute scientific evidences and theories all the time. That’s how we progresses further towards the truth of reality.

But my bigger point there was that the more settled science is compatible with theism. Newton’s laws of motion. Ohm’s law. Formation of three rock types. The temps at which water freezes and boils, transpiration, oxidation, fission, fusion, other galaxies exist, optics, radiology, cardiology, meteorology, oceans currents, Faraday constant, Planck’s constant, Avogadro’s constant, heliocentrism, thermodynamics, Beer’s Law, Boyle’s Law, expanding universe, micro-evolution, Doppler effect, Pythagorean Theorem, etc.

Do you have an example of a reasonable disagreement between science and religion?

The Galileo affair.

 

[remez]

How were Galileo's science and religion compatible?

In the previous century Copernicus introduced a new theory of orbits. At that point both camps (theism and science) began to investigate its validity. It took almost a hundred years to settle the issue. Within each camp the two models were investigated. Galileo, a theist and scientist, helped to settle the issue in both camps. In the science camp, scientists discarded the geocentric model and adopted a heliocentric model. In the theistic camp, Galileo revealed that a geocentric interpretation from scripture was not necessary, in fact it was incorrect.

Hence Galileo’s theism was compatible with a heliocentric model.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

How were Galileo's science and religion compatible?

In the previous century Copernicus introduced a new theory of orbits. At that point both camps (theism and science) began to investigate its validity. It took almost a hundred years to settle the issue. Within each camp the two models were investigated. Galileo, a theist and scientist, helped to settle the issue in both camps. In the science camp, scientists discarded the geocentric model and adopted a heliocentric model. In the theistic camp, Galileo revealed that a geocentric interpretation from scripture was not necessary, in fact it was incorrect.

Hence Galileo’s theism was compatible with a heliocentric model.

So how was heliocentrism compatible with his theism, by simply putting the word theistic in front of the science and moving on? I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

We have that happening today with theistic evolution. Apparently it's all the magic spaceman's plan, a creature that does not live by natural law and miraculously suspends these laws on a regular basis.

So I fail to see how the two worlds are compatible. In fact they are completely separate and utterly opposed, unless one is willing to continue moving the goal posts further and further and further back every time a line is crossed, which is precisely what happens, or by engaging in semantic juggling.

 

[remez]

In the previous century Copernicus introduced a new theory of orbits. At that point both camps (theism and science) began to investigate its validity. It took almost a hundred years to settle the issue. Within each camp the two models were investigated. Galileo, a theist and scientist, helped to settle the issue in both camps. In the science camp, scientists discarded the geocentric model and adopted a heliocentric model. In the theistic camp, Galileo revealed that a geocentric interpretation from scripture was not necessary, in fact it was incorrect.

Hence Galileo’s theism was compatible with a heliocentric model.

So how was heliocentrism compatible with his theism, by simply putting the word theistic in front of the science and moving on? I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

We have that happening today with theistic evolution. Apparently it's all the magic spaceman's plan, a creature that does not live by natural law and miraculously suspends these laws on a regular basis.

So I fail to see how the two worlds are compatible. In fact they are completely separate and utterly opposed, unless one is willing to continue moving the goal posts further and further and further back every time a line is crossed, which is precisely what happens, or by engaging in semantic juggling.

Do you think all theism in set in stone?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Actually, if the parents didn't tell the child that Santa brought them in the first place the child wouldn't believe that. If you've spent much time around children in the toddler and up range you'll see that they're very naturally observant and inquisitive. They reach out to their environment and through interaction/experimentation learn about things like cause and effect.

Without religious ideas being given to children and upheld by the parents' authority I think they'd be scientifically minded from the very start.

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

"Theism" is too broad a term for me to respond to this assessment. Certainly science and Santa Claus are incompatible.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

"Theism" is too broad a term for me to respond to this assessment. Certainly science and Santa Claus are incompatible.

You've illustrated the point I am trying to make, namely that theism and Santa Claus are compatible.

I could go on at great length arguing for the existence of Santa. It would ultimately depend on what I assert Santa to be. I could argue for the existence of Santa based on human behavior alone. Why do tens of millions of us believe in him completely? Why does our Earth and Sun do this celestial dance if not purposely planned and designed expressly for the purpose of revealing Santa to us? Why have cultures for millenia celebrated at this time of year if not for Santa? I could go on but you get the point, that Santa and Theism are the same thing.

 

[fromderinside]

... seven hundred years after the enlightenment "sine die" is a proper comment on this thread.

I mean a bad psychiatric analog, same species, come on.

 

[remez]

Let's suppose that you came down on christmas day and saw in all the bunch of presents one that you did not buy. you ask your wife and she says no - it is a mystery to you. To your child? Not so much - Santa bought those presents - no mystery here
Then you ask your mom or other and they say yes, they had bought that present - mystery solved!

Actually, if the parents didn't tell the child that Santa brought them in the first place the child wouldn't believe that. If you've spent much time around children in the toddler and up range you'll see that they're very naturally observant and inquisitive. They reach out to their environment and through interaction/experimentation learn about things like cause and effect.

Without religious ideas being given to children and upheld by the parents' authority I think they'd be scientifically minded from the very start.

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

"Theism" is too broad a term for me to respond to this assessment. Certainly science and Santa Claus are incompatible.

“Theism” is narrower than your term “religious ideas”
Ram’s context, which you responded to, was narrowed to Christianity and Islam.
Hence my question?

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

If so? On what grounds.

 

[remez]

"Theism" is too broad a term for me to respond to this assessment. Certainly science and Santa Claus are incompatible.

You've illustrated the point I am trying to make, namely that theism and Santa Claus are compatible.

I could go on at great length arguing for the existence of Santa. It would ultimately depend on what I assert Santa to be. I could argue for the existence of Santa based on human behavior alone. Why do tens of millions of us believe in him completely? Why does our Earth and Sun do this celestial dance if not purposely planned and designed expressly for the purpose of revealing Santa to us? Why have cultures for millenia celebrated at this time of year if not for Santa? I could go on but you get the point, that Santa and Theism are the same thing.

Hold on.

You've illustrated the point I am trying to make, namely that theism and Santa Claus are compatible.

No you are changing arguments.
Ram started with a genetic fallacy.
We were discussing the compatibility of the theism and science of Galileo.
Now you are changing to an absence of evidence argument to equate theism with Santa, evidenced by……….

I could go on at great length arguing for the existence of Santa. It would ultimately depend on what I assert Santa to be. I could argue for the existence of Santa based on human behavior alone. Why do tens of millions of us believe in him completely? Why does our Earth and Sun do this celestial dance if not purposely planned and designed expressly for the purpose of revealing Santa to us? Why have cultures for millenia celebrated at this time of year if not for Santa? I could go on but you get the point, that Santa and Theism are the same thing.

Pick one. They require different responses.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Are you asserting that theism and science are incompatible?

If so? On what grounds.

What I said was I do not believe that children, if left alone to explore the world, would invent an all-powerful deity to explain what they observe.

In that sense, yes, the aspect of theism that 'explains' natural phenomena with "god did it" is not compatible with science. It is not an acceptable approach to scientific investigation.

 

[bigfield]

I agree. Disputing the evidence is a critical requirement of any epistemology. Scientists and theists dispute scientific evidences and theories all the time. That’s how we progresses further towards the truth of reality.

Disputing the evidence is only constructive while those disputes are still reasonable. Young Earth creationists dispute the evidence because it disagrees with their doctrine, not because of any reasonable shortcomings in the empirical evidence or theories.

Do you have an example of a reasonable disagreement between science and religion?

The Galileo affair.

The church opposed (and suppressed) heliocentrism because it contradicted their doctrine. That is not a reasonable disagreement.