Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

Science and Spirit

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 78
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/24/2019 1:34:46 PM

I disagree with 2 above. Scientists can and certainly are in many cases "religious on behalf of science". i remember a wonderful speech that my best childhood friend's father (a brilliant physicist and chemist) once gave around the campfire explaining how everything in science proves the Creator. i wish i had it documented somewhere. The way he walked up through physical & chemical phenomena to demonstrate his thesis was absolutely masterful. i can't reproduce it, but Leonard saw spirituality and direct evidence of a Higher Power everywhere he looked in science.

Actually using the term "climate denier" suggests that you may be taking the religious approach to "climate science". The phenomena being debated cannot be accurately measured. That's the problem. The empirical data just aren't there. The conclusions require elaborate statistical manipulations and computer models which are notoriously limited and produce, at best, crude estimations with error bars that exceed the ranges they're predicting. Using true scientific method, the climatic trends as well as the contribution of known causes to them are open questions. The whole issue has, however,been co-opted by people who want THEIR answers to be the ONLY ACCEPTABLE ONES and to put the kibash on dissenting analyses. This is the antithesis of scientific method.

These are some pretty bright guys:

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 1/24/2019 2:38:44 PM

1. Saying that all of science proves the creator is a wonderful opinion. But there's no way to test whether or not a creator actually did it or that a creator exists to do the creating. Normally this is an argument for complexity; the idea that organisms are too complex to have occurred naturally. I used to agree with this premise. However, it is circular logic and as a computer scientist I deal with logic daily. Why is it circular logic? Because if we had to be created by a more complex organism then explain how God doesn't need a creator himself in order to exist? Either you have a series of ever more complex creators or someone had to evolve from something less complex. Religion tries to get around this by claiming God is a magical being and magic by nature is outside the realm of scientific explanation. Religion tries to have it both ways without ever providing any evidence for the existence of magic. And without the existence of magic you cannot have a magical deity. The fact is that many scientists were raised religious and so their beliefs bias and conflict with their work. These people honestly want to believe in God and that's what they look for. I used to think they eye had irreducible complexity because that was Christian propaganda. I have since seen less complex eyes.

On climate change how do you explain these things?

There is lots of evidence that tells us the average temperatures of the world's atmosphere and oceans have increased over the past 150 years.

The evidence includes:

direct temperature measurements on land
changes in the dates when lakes and rivers freeze and their ice melts
a reduction in the extent of snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere
a reduction in glaciers
extended growing seasons of plants
changes in the heat stored in the ocean
changes in rainfall patterns resulting in more floods, droughts and intense rain.
A number of biological changes have also been observed.

These include:

shifts in the ranges of some plant and animal species
earlier timing of spring events such as leaf-unfolding, bird migration and egg-laying for some species.
Together these indicators provide clear evidence that the climate is changing.

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 4:03:20 AM

No doubt about it: the earth's climate is changing continuously. Plenty of empirical evidence for that.

Establishing any conclusive bivariate-dominated causation (e.g., CO2 vs. avg. temp) is well beyond the scope of both available empirical data and man's limited understanding of climate-influencing mechanisms and their interactions.

Consensus has nothing to do with scientific method and if allowed to dictate we could still be assuming a geocentric universe. And, of course, it is impossible using any method to provide proof of a negative (e.g., "When they show proof using the scientific method that there is no global warming I will listen.")

As you know, we'll never settle this debate here since there are millions of people out there still debating it and there are mountains of information.

The important thing in the practice of science, as in all human interactions, is demonstrating respect to others who hold differing opinions and/or who have drawn different conclusions from your own. That could start by dropping the politically-loaded term "denier" from the vernacular and just calling scientists who've drawn differing conclusions something like, well...scientists who've drawn different conclusions.

On the topic of a Creator, that's also a fruitless cycle of argument. We can take all of the logic you've presented, invert it 180 degrees, and come at it from the other direction. Yin and Yang. Because we cannot adequately conceptualize God within the context of the science and logic we understand or within the limits of the human mind does not preclude His (Its) existence. There's an awful lot of tangible evidence of a "Creator" for which we have scant other explanation. The absence of the present ability to directly test a hypothesis does not eliminate it from the realm of science.


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 5:08:48 AM

Interesting debate.

I think you both went from "religious on behalf of science" talk ... to whether science can prove the existence of a God. Or rather, whether science necessarily has to disagree with the existence of a higher power.

I see a possible error here

The existence of a God
The existence of a creator
The existence of spiritual forces
The existence of a creative force

IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TO RELIGION. Almost if not a completely different topic. Its easy to get into this trap and not a criticism.

Religion isn't whether or not these forces exist.
Religion is a dogma of common customs which become culture, based on ideologies of personification of man's flawed interpretation of such forces. But again, not whether the force actually exist. Its an easy trap to get caught

Religion comes from the Latin word to bind and religion is to be bound by scripture and laws and traditions in practice. Religion is systematic. Religion is not free thought and free expression. Religion is rigid.

When you deep it....

You can say science doesn't have to disagree with the belief of a higher or creative force. And this belief can be on behalf of science. But to be religious on behalf of science would be to kneel and pray or read a Bible or go to church on behalf of science. From this point of view I have to say there is no correlation

Not sure if I explained that righteously.

Anyway as I was saying, interesting from you both

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 5:32:17 AM

Yes, G.A. Excellent. You highlight the importance of how we define words like "religion", "science", "spirituality", "creator" etc., etc. Language is not absolute, but based upon common usage and context. Unfortunately, because each of us has a different experiential background, my "common usage" may differ from yours. That said, it's easy to see that there are potentially huge intersections between "science" and "religion" or "science" and "spirituality" depending on how these words are defined and used.

Kind of like the big mountain that different people see and call by different names: we spend a lot of time arguing over semantics when we may actually be in agreement fundamentally.

If one were to believe in such things as "the devil" then we'd have to conclude that he has a delightful time watching JAH people argue among themselves based on semantic misunderstandings while actually agreeing at the core!

Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 1/25/2019 5:39:26 AM

75% of my time on this forum and reasoning in REAL Life is semantics

I try and be very dictionary defined literally accurate rather than colloquial when I talk

But then even I get caught up

Especially when dealing with I people in Patois Ebonics and Pidgin. Especially when words and phrases from those 3 culturolinguistic paradigms are based around and deep rooted in plantation level (here we go again) ABRAHAMIC RELIIGOUS IDEOLOGY. Then I find myself in a horrible circle..... look how i end it...


- From the A-Christian A-Thiest

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 5:53:29 AM

i agree, but then lexicographers are constantly in the process of updating dictionaries to reflect the changing meanings of words based upon evolving common usage. And even if you strictly apply definition 1. or 2. as your guide, when ya look back at definition 5. ya find out that the guy you were arguing with is technically correct based upon that definition! Words and language can be limiting (e.g., Tower of Babel).

Messenger: Nesta1 Sent: 1/25/2019 7:36:26 AM

There's a great example of common usage vs. "proper" definition leading to misunderstanding in the word: myth.

We all know that a myth is a kind of traditional story that serves a certain religious and/or educational function in a society. The story may be based upon true events, fictional events or both. However, in common usage, myth has come to be synonymous with a fictional or false story. This creates a great potential for people to misunderstand one another depending on which definition of "myth" they are using.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 3031 - 4041 - 5051 - 6061 - 7071 - 78

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I