RE: They actually say this stuff?
(29-05-2012 05:29 AM)robotworld Wrote:
(28-05-2012 10:59 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote: Hello RW, nice to meet you and thanks for the input.
Hello S.T. Ranger, thank you for your reply. To answer your question, when some scientist somewhere demonstrates new knowledge which has the capability to overturn previously existing models, there will be resistance of course. People see this scientist's theories as absurd, and may not believe him at the start. It will be up to this budding scientist to demonstrate his theories through experimentation. Other scientists can chime in and replicate the experiments of this scientists. If the experiments do indeed prove that this new scientist is correct, the old model is gradually abandoned for this new model. For instance the wave-particle duality model of light replacing the wave model of light through experiments such as the photoelectric effect. However, if the experiments other scientists do fail to replicate the results of the scientist even if all conditions and equipment are equivalent, the new theory or discovery is abandoned, regardless of its potential to change humanity. For instance, experiments on cold fusion. If the scientist still believes that he is right, it is still up to the scientist to prove himself right using a new and better experiment.
I do have to say that you basically end by saying exactly what I was trying to get across. It is a science versus faith debate for most, the one side rejecting the other side's position, claiming that only their side is correct, though we have many examples of crossing the aisles in between...lol.
I don't think, in context of the reply anyway, that this could be called a strawman, as it is not particular science or conclusion(s) of science I am referring to, but Science itself.
In context, a correlation between scripture and the many, many publications of science, is sought to be made, and this is not really the same, hence...apples and oranges. I tried to give what might be viewed as an equivalent, Watchtower publication, to better make the point.
On perhaps a different note, and for the sake of discussion, I would just ask, if Science was abandoned every time some scientist somewhere demonstrates new knowledge that denies the validity of a previously held position, would you say that this was a loss of "trust" in science? Is there that much difference between "trust" and "faith?"
It would be ludicrous to abandon Science because a former understanding was either disproved or expanded, yet, as in the case of the member (and others I have talked to), abandoning faith because they discern an error in their professed faith (denomination)...is completely acceptable.
Again, thanks for the response, I appreciate it very much.
But with regards to faith, we can see that people's ideas of God's work is interpreted differently as time goes by. Theistic evolution is not a common concept we hear before and during Darwin's time, and it is a very recent stance some theists take. What people believe changes along with how society thinks. The stance of homosexuality has shifted in some denominations to become more accepting of them. That seems to be a parallel to scientific progress and development, with the evolution of how people think and such.
If for the sake of argument, a single religion is a field of science, and how the religion progress is similar to how science changes within this field, by right and the end of the day, there will be only one single sect remaining, with the other sects long lost in time. Even if there are some disagreements which seemingly split the single sect to two opposing camps, the two camps will reconcile as soon as possible, and move on as a whole. If science works exactly like how religion works nowadays, all the outdated scientific concepts will still stay and greatly hinder progress. Doctors argue whether to let blood out to cure a person's fever or simply giving the person a pill, there will still be an argument over whether to use A.C. or D.C. to transmit electricity...
If the Catholics, Protestants, Methodists and all the other sects are willing to compromise, and work together to find the common interpretation to the Scripture instead of arguing who has the correct interpretation of the Scripture, then yes, I dare say religion now progresses like how science progresses.
Hello RW, and thanks for the reply! I don't have the time to respond right now, but I will get back to it as soon as possible. Not to whine, but...I'm a little tired. lol
But I do appreciate the time you have put into the conversation and will respond when I get back.