Newton would be a good example of a religious man going against the dogma of his religion to discover science in a most basic way.

The scientific method works no matter what your religion.

We already have changed the meaning. In John Locke's time 'ad hominem' (while still literally meaning 'to the man' of course) was taken to mean something completely different than the fallacy of arguing that the personal flaws of the speaker invalidate the speaker's argument. I believe it was something like 'making an argument that is tailored to the knowledge, experience, or stated beliefs of the listener'. If I'm wrong in that particular, and misrepresent Locke's (and his contemporaries') usage, its still true that it was different than the more recent usage you give above.

Was this evolution of meaning a mistake? Should we insist that Locke's usage is the correct usage? Did you sell your inheritance for a bowl of lentils? Or maybe sold Locke's inheritance?

We can get so attached to the usages that we first encounter, or which appeared codified in dictionaries during our periods of formative education, or which by whatever means appear to us to be 'most right'.

If you are concerned with ambiguity, you can still say 'argumentum ad hominem'. Practically no one uses that phrase for insults they just use 'ad hominem'.

Yes, its interesting how the majority of the people who advanced our knowledge of the natural world (until very recently) were religious...

...and yet were in some way or other at odds with the religious doctrines of their time.

No he wouldn't. Newton's writings on science are only outweighed by his writings on religion. That's like saying a man is leaving his wife because he goes to work for eight hours a day.

In Newton's time, theology was called the queen of the sciences. Every western scientist was also a theologian, at least in training, if not practice. There is only one reason to study the laws of the universe: you believe in the law maker.

Ain't you the one who wrote " "If there was another explanation, I ought to be able to think of it." This is incredible hubris."? Because some scientist today can't think of a way of testing the theory, doesn't mean nobody can think of a way of testing. And what do we put in place of the theory that God created the universe? Nothing. So it's an acceptance of no theory, over the only plausible theory.



I've stated the qualities that would be required for a god to cause the big bang: space-less, time-less and incredibly powerful. That eliminates almost all religions. We can' write Odin off the list, because Odin was never described as any of those things. We end up with Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The argument doesn't take us any further than that. It don't matter how good your car is, it'll run out of gas eventually.

Yes! We agree. (Notice I said others 'would insist' and (elsewhere) 'at this point in history').

I agree that it would be hubris to insist that my failure to imagine means of (scientifically) testing a god hypothesis indicates that no such test could exist.

It would even be hubris to believe that the failure of an entire sentient species to imagine a test is evidence that no such test is possible.

But what do we do with possibilities that are not yet imagined?

The hypothetical existence of an unimagined means of scientifically testing a god hypothesis gives us...

Well, hope for some. But when it comes finding answer, today, it leaves me with "We really don't know about questions outside of time and space". What else does it give us?

Just as in other areas of investigation, this is one of the wiser courses of action, absent strong evidence for any particular theory.

I can understand some that might give provisional acceptance to a theory, use it as a working theory, while maintaining non-attachment to it, keeping in mind the lack of evidence, and occasionally revisiting it. But if they are honest, they will admit that their current working theory has no real basis.




What exactly is the plausible theory? That Einstein's spin on a deist god did it? Or that the current pope's spin on the catholic god did it?

What does it really mean to say 'well, god did it' if we don't give particulars to that god, and how it did it?

The way some people do this (conclude on and defend the claim that god did it), they are just using words, devoid of additional meaning, to mask our lack of knowledge.

And the way some others do this, they are sneaking other conclusions in, unexamined.

I am pretty sure you understood the meaning of it!
And your Hairsplitting doesn't change that!
Your Hand was deep in the Cookiejar!

Well lookee there. You made 3 statements and all of them were false. That's called a trifecta.

Keep it in the topic and NOT directed at each other.

Kim

You don't need an explanation of the explanation to accept the most plausible explanation of an event. You are proposing an infinite regress. It's like if a scientist found a new bacteria and had to not just prove it existed, but prove it's life cycle, place in the Eco-system, evolutionary history, etc, just to have other scientists admit it exists.

You can accept that a god who fits the criteria (I have mentioned repeatedly) exists, such a god would fully explain the existence of the universe and be what Plato called "the first mover", without building a religion around it. Hell, some of the Greek philosophers believed in a creator god, but they didn't even worship him!

You are just putting up new hoops to jump through, before you'll accept the obvious answer to the existence of everything. You should put your thinkin cap on and try to figure out why that is.

thats kind of a sad way to look at it, or maybe you don't do much research on things besides myths..

if a scientist discovers a bacteria, of course he is going to do as much study on it as possible, otherwise they would be guessing... but thats how religious people are anyway, right? you don't need any proof that there is a god, or a new bacteria, as long as you have faith, right?

faith doesn't work in science, only hard work and lots of research gets real answers, but again, the faith thing kicks in and why bother to study something when all you have to do is believe in it?

You gotta try reading what I post. I'm actually quite brilliant.

For a scientist to prove that a bacteria exists, he doesn't have to offer anything more than the bacteria. He doesn't need all of the information about where it lives, how it evolved, etc. He can later do all that other research or leave it up to others.

But of course, that wasn't the point, it was an example. The brute fact exists that you don't need the explanation of an explanation to accept a theory. If you start demanding an explanation of every explanation BEFORE a theory would be accepted, then you create an infinite regress.

If scientists had demanded an explanation for the theory of evolution, before they would accept it, it would still be ignored. Science can't explain how the first DNA formed. Science can't explain how the first genes were built. Science can't explain where life came from.

You are welcome to come back with another sophomoric response, hell, I'll probably get a kick out of reading it. But trust me on this, I'm right on the whole explanation of the explanation thing.

sorry, i don't think you have a good grasp on scientific theory... a scientist wants to learn, not take things at face value... if a scientist discovers a new species, i would hope they try to study it before making proclamations...

evolution is almost fact now, i myself believe it to be, there is so much evidence to show it's happening as we speak... but people that believe the religious dogma cannot understand it, because it doesn't glorify god, in fact it shows the bible wrong...

Thank you for your response, I got a kick out of it.

If a scientist discovered a new bacteria, he or she would describe it, and present photographs these days, yet they would not have to do all sorts of extra research on the details of it's evolution or peculiarities of biochemistry before publishing their findings.

This has been a pretty interesting thread. The contrasts between science and religions are often presented, but I think that ultimately science also requires a level of faith. You need faith in the scientific method, that observations can be trustworthy, and that logic is applicable.

In any system of thought or belief there are going to be assumptions, premisses or matters of faith to get the ball rolling, and, since so many different ideas could be in our initial assumptions or points of faith, could we ever know which is the more "correct" or accurate system?

I agree with some of what you wrote and disagree with other parts. This idea that religion and science are opposed, that's only held by people who are uneducated on both. Science describes the natural world, religion the supernatural world. Ain't no conflict in believing in both, regardless of what those who never cracked a Bible open in their life would tell you. If you accept that both worlds may exist, it's not a question of which system is more accurate, it becomes a question of if you will follow the evidence where it leads.

can you present any evidence of there being a god? not looking at the sky and making presumptions, but actual, tangible evidence? anything besides a "feeling" it might be there?

Why on God's green earth would I want to repeat myself? If you could trouble yourself to read what I have posted, you'd have your answer.

lol, my point exactly...i guess thats why there are so many scientists that "study" god... whats the latest god theory now?