Protestantism

» Migisi - Some Science Tells Us

In response to Some Science Tells Us posted by pink101:
.
THAT might be why placebos work so well in many cases.
.
Power of suggestion? Mind over body? I agree. It's been documented to occur in medical studies.
.
Richard Dawkins come into conflict with each other.
.
What does Dawkins have to say on faith healing?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Some Science Tells Us

In response to Some Science Tells Us posted by Migisi:

.
Probably that it is one of the evils of religion.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Creation Science

In response to Some Science Tells Us posted by Migisi:

What does Dawkins have to say on faith healing?

Professors like Dawkins have reached their conclusions as a result making a commitment to the position that there is no God. I think you would agree with the idea that Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms. It depends on observation, accepts nothing on faith and acknowledges that it can never claim to know ultimate truth. In most cases, science sees the Universe as following its own rules blindly, without interference or direction.

That is religious Science, imo. It is partly the work of Asimov and Sagan (who I referenced in earlier posts) to convince educated children that every question that deals with creation and morality defaults back to the idea that the Universe did it. The Universe created us. The Universe blindly rules us. Or the so called Laws of Nature rule us. If indeed the Universe did all of this, then the need for God is minimal and it would be very hard to make a case that God is needed for much of anything concerning a health issue. Scientific models of thinking even has some sort of approach to the idea of parental love according to the Pink. The Universe has answers for everything even though it is mindless and chaotic.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Creation Science

In response to Creation Science posted by Brother_Jones:
.
.
Anyone who has had children has gone through the experience, when their little one had a tooth so loose it was barely hanging by a thread, of trying to pull that tooth out of the child's mouth. It's close to impossible. But, eventually, the tooth comes out either by its own accord or by some long time cajoling.
.
It's something like pulling teeth getting some people to come to a point in a discussion where we find the fork in the road that has taken us to where we are in our thinking. Does that make sense to you?
.
A person with clear thinking can easily see where Brother Jones is in this post. He is telling us, "Professors like Dawkins have reached their conclusions as a result making a commitment to the position that there is no God." My first thought in reaction to that strong statement is, "What evidence does Brother Jones have that such a claim is true?" I'm sure he can get several others to agree with him on that; but, these matters are not a question of some majority decision.
.
My point is not to question the claim; but, to point out that it comes from a particular mind set. We are starting to hone in on some critical points of interest here.
.
The mind set displayed by the Lord's Old Timer opposes itself to a scientific understanding of reality. So, there you have a position--or--should I say an apposition. It says that science goes about its search for truth in an erroneous way--the scientific method is wrong.
.
Or, do I misread you, Brother Jones?
.
This is a critical point in the discussions we have carried out here at Sutie101 as it has historical roots that can be opened up for observation.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Creation Science

In response to Creation Science posted by pink101:

Old Timer opposes itself to a scientific understanding of reality. So, there you have a position--or--should I say an apposition.

Nah, that isn't quite true. Science does have a few things they can educate us about reality. But when it comes to God, Love, and Morality, not very much. Try to use your mind and recount the number of hospitals, schools, and bad orphanages founded by Science or Atheism. Why would the number be rather small?

I should have positioned my statement about Dawkins to say, imo. That would have helped a little to suggest that all wagons that I have seen roll along on round wheels, and perhaps there might be a wagon using square ones. Science has done a bang up job giving all kinds of data about the observable Universe. When Science or Scientists contend that the only reality that exists in the Universe is the observable matter, then they have crossed over the line into a religious philosophy. I bet you agree with that statement. Certainly, you agee with my statement.

Science does not employ and pay people to reflect on philosophical approaches to the question of the meaning of love and life. Most science based professors and actual scientists who venture into the world of philosophy and attempt to reason against the evidence of God are an embarassment to their collegues. (imho)

So my point is that dumb thinking occurs in both camps. You seem to think most of it is only on the 'faith' side that would seek to use every kind of argument for God including fuzzy science. I sure wouldn't trust a scientist turned atheist to teach me about God, nor would I trust a religious professor to operate on my heart. They are involved in two different types of observing the Universe which do not necessarily overlap.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - My Comments Hold

In response to Creation Science posted by Brother_Jones:
.
Let's revisit Brother Jones' original post in this latest exchange.
.
Migisi had asked, "What does Dawkins have to say on faith healing?"
.
And, Brother Jones offered in return,
.
(Brother Jones comments will be in bold and italic face and mine in regular. That might help the reader follow along.)
"Professors like Dawkins have reached their conclusions as a result making a commitment to the position that there is no God."
.
You seem to be saying that it's not just Dawkins; but, all professors who are--like--Dawkins. Is that correct? There is a special group of professors?
.
"I think you would agree with the idea that Science seeks to understand the universe in naturalistic terms."
.
I'm not sure what you mean by "naturalistic". If you mean according to nature, then I agree.
.
"It depends on observation, accepts nothing on faith and acknowledges that it can never claim to know ultimate truth.".
For the most part, that appears to be the case with the possible exception that certain "ultimate truths" can be learned. Maybe you mean that you belong to a group of people who know the ultimate truth?
.
"In most cases, science sees the Universe as following its own rules blindly, without interference or direction."
.
I don't know that "science" thinks the Universe follows "its own rules blindly"; but, for all intent and purposes that is probably correct.
.
"That is religious Science, imo."
.
Are you saying you think such is a doctrine of a group of scientists the members of which have created a religion you are calling religious science?
.
"It is partly the work of Asimov and Sagan (who I referenced in earlier posts) to convince educated children that every question that deals with creation and morality defaults back to the idea that the Universe did it.".
How about Newton? Didn't he have something to do with the creation of the Scientific Method?
.
"The Universe created us. The Universe blindly rules us. Or the so called Laws of Nature rule us."
.
Where did you find these statements? Are you opining here that they are statements accepted as absolute truth in scientific circles--some scientific circles--all scientific circles? What do you mean by, "... the so called Laws of Nature..." It certainly looks as though you are trying to position people according to how they fit in with your Old Timer mind set.
.
"If indeed the Universe did all of this, then the need for God is minimal and it would be very hard to make a case that God is needed for much of anything concerning a health issue."
.
How do you make this jump in conclusions? I don't get your logic.
.
"Scientific models of thinking even has some sort of approach to the idea of parental love according to the Pink. The Universe has answers for everything even though it is mindless and chaotic."
.
I don't know enough about Chaos Theory to have an opinion here; but, it seems you are giving yourself a license to reinvent me according to your perspectives on those who take exception to you in certain cases. But, yes, I do think that the social sciences can develop understandings on the ideas of parental love as well as every other social interaction.
.
We are clarifying the two positions expressed by your view and mine as far as reality is concerned. Am I getting it correctly?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - My Comments Hold

In response to My Comments Hold posted by pink101:

But, yes, I do think that the social sciences can develop understandings on the ideas of parental love as well as every other social interaction.

Well in your graph, that becomes your idea. The next step is to perform an experiment or observe the results of someone's study. The challenge to what you might suggest is whether it simply becomes a mechanical observance and an attempt to prove that human beings are like robots or some sort of wind up toys that can be predicted to act as your brand of social sciences suggest that they will interact with other human beings. Good luck with your experimental stage. I am hoping that your example experimental study follows.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Migisi - Dear Theologian

.
A letter from God.
.
http://ffrf.org/books/lfif/?t=theologian
(Quote)
..."Yet I still wonder why I'm here. It feels good to exist. It feels great to be perfect. But it gives me nothing to do. I created the universe with all kinds of natural laws that govern everything from quarks to galactic clusters, and it runs okay on its own. I had to make these laws, otherwise I would be involved with a lot of repetitive busy work, such as pulling light rays through space, yanking falling objects down to the earth, sticking atoms together to build molecules, and a trillion other boring tasks more worthy of a slave than a master. You have discovered most of those laws, and might be on the verge of putting the whole picture together, and once you have done that you will know what I know: that there is nothing in the universe for me to do. It's boring up here.
.
"I could create more universes and more laws, but what's the point? I've already done universes. Creation is like sneezing or writing short stories; it just comes out of me. I could go on an orgy of creation. Create, create, create. After a while a person can get sick of the same thing, like when you eat a whole box of chocolates and discover that the last piece doesn't taste as good as the first. Once you have had ten children, do you need twenty? (I'm asking you, not the pope.) If more is better, then I am obligated to continue until I have fathered an infinite number of children, and an endless number of universes. If I must compel myself, then I am a slave." (end quote)
.
The whole letter is pretty interesting, IMO.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - You Don't Get Off That Easy

In response to My Comments Hold posted by Brother_Jones:
.
"Good luck with your experimental stage. I am hoping that your example experimental study follows."
.
You don't get off that easy, Brother Jones.
.
There are more than two ways of thinking about reality. It is not a black and white situation.
.
The central thesis of your position has much to do with the definition of society--what it is and how it works. And, more importantly, perhaps, why it works at all.
.
Where is the fork in the road that takes you on one direction and me on another? Did it take place in church one day or did it happen before either of us was born? I opt out for the latter.
.
You are adhering to an idea of society that comes from the distant past. When that fork in the road came and ideas about reality changed drastically, the traditionalists continued on the straight and narrow even patting themselves on their back for being so brilliant as to reject the idea that the earth revolved around the sun. Sure, you give up on some of the ideas of the ancient regime; but, you stick close to the main thrust that carried those flat earth mentalities.
.
Truth is being discovered and reality is unfolding on a constant and steady basis--even here in our discussions. The level in these threads has reached the place where we are able to discuss things we could not even address a year ago.
.
It's like pulling teeth. But, the teeth do come out--sooner or later--of their own accord or by gradual cajole.
.
Faith is being dragged into the present--kicking and screaming; but, it is coming into post modern times.
.
Like it or lump it. Makes no difference. Time marches on.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - You Don't Get Off That Easy

In response to You Don't Get Off That Easy posted by pink101:

You don't get off that easy, Brother Jones.

I just did.

There are more than two ways of thinking about reality. It is not a black and white situation.

Is there another component to this besides Naturalism and Supernaturalism?

Shouldn't I use mostly science to study Nature? And can I use mostly Jesus to study Supernaturalism?

The central thesis of your position has much to do with the definition of society--what it is and how it works. And, more importantly, perhaps, why it works at all.

Do you sense that your life has any meaning or purpose? What scientific model of thinking would give you that? Society is just a bunch of us. Why would a society think any different about ulitimate purposes? What good is society? I think it has been shown in another thread that some societies (Jonestown) are dangerous and deadly to those in it. Can you give any reason for your existence based on any research that you have done? Why have you come here today and posted? Is it just because you are curious and want to educate yourself about my views a few years before you shove off into whatever hole in Space you think you go to? What's up with you?

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones