Locke
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-08-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Locke
Welcome! Here are your complimentary doughnuts!

[Image: dsc_0120.jpg]

"If you keep trying to better yourself that's enough for me. We don't decide which hand we are dealt in life, but we make the decision to play it or fold it" - Nishi Karano Kaze
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JDog554's post
06-08-2014, 07:35 PM
Re: Locke
Ooh, like John Locke or Locke Cole?

Welcome in, enjoy the reading.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2014, 08:14 PM
RE: Locke
Locke, you are automatically cool if you played FF3 (American) or FF6.

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adrianime's post
07-08-2014, 01:16 PM
RE: Locke
(06-08-2014 07:35 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Ooh, like John Locke or Locke Cole?

Welcome in, enjoy the reading.

Just a rl nickname I was given actually

Quote:Locke, you are automatically cool if you played FF3 (American) or FF6.

Just FF7.. it was more like a shooter. Sorry mate =P


Quote:
Quote:I never try to shove my views down someone's throat, but I do love talking about them.

I thought so too until I read this line. Big Grin

I think my signature explains that one pretty well. In other words, I try to exercise self control, and I prefer to be reserved.

[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 04:02 PM
RE: Locke
(06-08-2014 05:06 PM)Locke Wrote:  I'm Locke, 21 years old and studying Biomedical Engineering. I love knowledge, love learning and improving, and do my best to take advantage of every opportunity to do so, which is every moment of every day.

I'm a Christian.
Hello Locke

Welcome aboard.

I don't feel you need to explain your own beliefs or yourself, certainly not to me. So please don't feel that I am expecting a response to my expression of thoughts below.

I do find it fascinating that educated intelligent professional scientists whom fully understand how difficult it is to extract knowledge from data can apply the principles of the scientific method to their work, but then ignore this rigor with regards to their religious knowledge.

I feel that religion can often inhibit an intelligent mind with regards to attaining knowledge. e.g Michael Behe and other "Intelligent Design" scientists.
It's not just the "Intelligent Design" group. We also have Kenneth R. Miller whom is a Christian scientist who presented a case for evolution. I just don't know how Kenneth's religion inhibits his ability to accept certain scientifically accepted facts. He is a Roman Catholic so presumably he believes Heaven exists, that Jesus could turn water to wine, presumably he believes that the bread and wine he eats has literally transubstantiation into the blood and body of Jesus... I would think in his case (applying a scientific curiosity) would be to question "How do we know that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ? How can we verify this?"
If he doesn't ask these questions, then does this mean in a certain realm he stops being a scientist, and hence he stops respecting the search for knowledge?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
07-08-2014, 04:09 PM
RE: Locke
Hi Locke, good to have you here.

Welcome to the forum. Smile

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 04:10 PM
RE: Locke
Welcome Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2014, 10:10 PM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2014 10:13 PM by Locke.)
RE: Locke
(07-08-2014 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I don't feel you need to explain your own beliefs or yourself, certainly not to me. So please don't feel that I am expecting a response to my expression of thoughts below.

I do find it fascinating that educated intelligent professional scientists whom fully understand how difficult it is to extract knowledge from data can apply the principles of the scientific method to their work, but then ignore this rigor with regards to their religious knowledge.

I feel that religion can often inhibit an intelligent mind with regards to attaining knowledge. e.g Michael Behe and other "Intelligent Design" scientists.
It's not just the "Intelligent Design" group. We also have Kenneth R. Miller whom is a Christian scientist who presented a case for evolution. I just don't know how Kenneth's religion inhibits his ability to accept certain scientifically accepted facts. He is a Roman Catholic so presumably he believes Heaven exists, that Jesus could turn water to wine, presumably he believes that the bread and wine he eats has literally transubstantiation into the blood and body of Jesus... I would think in his case (applying a scientific curiosity) would be to question "How do we know that the bread and wine are the blood and body of Christ? How can we verify this?"
If he doesn't ask these questions, then does this mean in a certain realm he stops being a scientist, and hence he stops respecting the search for knowledge?

I appreciate your courteous approach; it encourages healthy academia.

I agree that religion can and does often inhibit an intelligent mind, as you say. A somewhat frustrating aspect of being a Christian is spending a lot of time around people who don't share my passion for learning. The more I read Scripture, the more I find statements like 1 Corinthians 13:6, "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth."
This Scripture, and many others (I'll spare you, save by your request) lay out the idea that evil is polar opposite to truth, and that truth equates to good. I love science, because the good hard facts show us something that is undeniably true, and that gives us something to work with, to build upon. It gives us a way to reach something we couldn't reach before.

The vast majority of religious people I've met profess Christianity (welcome to the Bible Belt) and the vast majority of those despise learning anything they don't absolutely have to.. and yet when a preacher gets up there and starts teaching Scripture, they all turn to nods and 'amens'.. but maybe not so much. They ask what I've been studying and I tell them the strong, practical, applicable things I've discovered in Scripture, and they suddenly look for a way to escape the conversation. If I tell them about Scriptures that speak of God's love and grace.. well suddenly they're fired up. They don't really want to learn, they just want to hold on to the cute little God image they have in their heads and go to church every week to feel good about themselves.

However, that's not the God of the Bible. While many don't love learning and truth, it is very much a message I find in Scripture, and that's one I can stand behind. Fortunately, not everyone in churches disdains learning, and there are many that love truth and seek understanding. From my experience, I think most people don't appreciate learning.

Back to your questions about Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller...
Well, I think intelligent design as a mandatory teaching in science is ludicrous, because there's no science to back it up. On the other hand, it isn't ruled out, and it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion many come to from observation of the world around them, so it's also not reasonable to militantly exclude it. As far as academia, I think it belongs somewhere in philosophy, religions, theology.. whatever.

I wrote all those previous paragraphs to address the Kenneth Miller question. I do agree not asking such questions about transubstantiation means he is not being a scientist about such things. However, that doesn't mean he stopped respecting a search for knowledge, as there are many different ways to seek knowledge, not all of them being entirely scientific. Science only addresses the study of the physical and natural world, not taking into account other aspects of our reality. If you brought a musician and a physicist to an opera with you, and afterwards asked them what they heard, the physicist might give you a lesson in harmonics while the musician might speak of emotions and give a less quantitative analysis. Well.. neither of them is wrong, per se.
Personally, I don't believe it makes a lot of sense for God to establish a complex and precise system that governs the natural world and then have everything breaking it all the time, and without logical explanation I won't accept such a proposal. All Scripture says about communion is that it's to be done in remembrance of Jesus.. nothing about literal transmutation of bread and alcohol.

I've spent some time around forums before, and especially talking to people I run into irl, but most of the time when people hear I'm Christian and bring accusation against me, they don't understand what I believe or what the Bible teaches very well. This isn't so much a mistake of ignorance on their part as it is poor representation of people professing Christianity ("Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute." - 2 Peter 2:2).

I know you didn't exactly ask for a response, so I do appreciate you caring enough to read this far. I thought I should end by saying I do want to increase my learning and challenge my beliefs, so I would love to eventually get the chance to toss them out and get feedback. For example, reading posts by atheists arguing how ridiculous the belief that the world is only a few thousands years old.. well, I would agree with them, so I find myself reading the argument for a few hours and logging off after learning nothing new Facepalm

EDIT: Yes, the scientific method is rigorous and effective for study of the natural world, and there should also be a careful method applied when seeking spiritual knowledge

[Image: AJqsKtG.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Locke's post
07-08-2014, 11:53 PM
RE: Locke
(07-08-2014 10:10 PM)Locke Wrote:  Well, I think intelligent design as a mandatory teaching in science is ludicrous, because there's no science to back it up.
Yes, agreed. For the ID'ers to offer a scientific view they need to put forth something that conforms to the scientific method. Finding gaps in knowledge and asserting God, is not science.
(07-08-2014 10:10 PM)Locke Wrote:  On the other hand, it isn't ruled out, and it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion many come to from observation of the world around them, so it's also not reasonable to militantly exclude it. As far as academia, I think it belongs somewhere in philosophy, religions, theology.. whatever.
I'm not big on the word "militant" because it kind of implies use of weapons and physical aggression. <grumble, grumble>
Sure, people can believe what they want and can apply philosophy, theology in order to ponder their experiences and thoughts of the world.
(07-08-2014 10:10 PM)Locke Wrote:  However, that doesn't mean he stopped respecting a search for knowledge, as there are many different ways to seek knowledge, not all of them being entirely scientific. Science only addresses the study of the physical and natural world, not taking into account other aspects of our reality.
Agreed. I specifically stated "principles of the scientific method" rather than merely "the scientific method". Principles being, trying to verify ideas and data, trying to find an objective method of discovery in order to remove confirmation bias etc.
To my view appealing to authority such as:
"The church or my spiritual leader said that it is this way, therefore it must be this way"
or
"The bible said so, therefore it must be this way"
or
"I had this personal experience and this is my conclusion therefore it must be this way"
These are not very reliable ways of obtaining knowledge (IMHO).
(07-08-2014 10:10 PM)Locke Wrote:  EDIT: Yes, the scientific method is rigorous and effective for study of the natural world, and there should also be a careful method applied when seeking spiritual knowledge
I would like to see a robust and objective method that can apply to spiritual knowledge but which doesn't appeal to authority, special pleading, prior assumptions, or ignorance (a.k.a. God of the gaps).
But when one tries to find truth in the realm of supernatural which is unmeasurable, undetectable etc, then how is it possible to verify knowledge or resolve disputes?
That is the challenge, I think, when entertaining this realm.
(07-08-2014 10:10 PM)Locke Wrote:  I know you didn't exactly ask for a response, so I do appreciate you caring enough to read this far.
It's great that you did respond. Thanks for taking the time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
08-08-2014, 12:19 AM
RE: Locke
You seem alright dude. I'll schedule a deconversion party for September. How do you like your baby done?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: