Theistic Scientists

[Unity+]

One could say that it doesn't matter whether we know if the distortions are due to translation, poor recording, deliberate distortion or whatever.

Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy.

 

Even if some bits of the (various) scriptures were correct by divine inspiration, you wouldn't know which bits were right and which were wrong.

 

So you would have to find some other method for distinguishing those options.

That's what science does.

So, since they are partly wrong, and entirely unreliable, what use are they?

Science finds the mechanisms of the world. It isn't meant to describe a part of history.

 

 

 

the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

 

We are beating a dead horse that we already had discussed before. If you have read the other posts, you would realize the argument for this.

[iNow]

We are beating a dead horse that we already had discussed before. If you have read the other posts, you would realize the argument for this.

I agree, the point is that the bible is full of silly nonsense and it's a wonder any modern day human being thinks it is somehow inerrant and divine.

[Unity+]

I agree, the point is that the bible is full of silly nonsense and it's a wonder any modern day human being thinks it is somehow inerrant and divine.

You know what, since this comment has been brought up so many times, here is a gift to such occurrences.

 

 

EDIT: Just to make sure you know, I respect everyone's opinion, but seriously to keep bringing up the same thing over and over again just brings redundancy in counter arguments and it gets irrelevant to the matter.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Unity+

[John Cuthber]

Unity+

Re. "Science finds the mechanisms of the world. It isn't meant to describe a part of history."

That brings up two issues- the first is that, if it was true it wouldn't be relevant because religion still says things today that are plainly wrong today.

The second issue is that the statement simply isn't true.

Science does describe history. We can look back at the fossil record and see ancient history or, we can look back to things like the 'flu epidemic at the end of WWI and explain what really happened.

 

The mechanisms don't change so they are just as good at describing past events as they are at describing the present and the future.

 

and re.

"Just to make sure you know, I respect everyone's opinion,"

The age of the earth isn't an opinion.

The nature of evolution isn't an opinion.

The number of ribs men and women have isn't an opinion.

 

If I held the opinion that the atmosphere didn't really contain oxygen and that such an idea was a conspiracy, would you actually respect that opinion or would you respect my right to hold that opinion?

 

There's a difference between the two ideas.

If I was to suggest teaching kids that oxygen is a myth, would you be happy with that?

The usual quote here is "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The truth is that religion gets things plainly wrong, and that's not " irrelevant to the matter." when the matter in hand is theistic scientists.

The willful propagation of falsehood is the antithesis of science so it's very much the crux of the matter.

Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Unity+]

Unity+

Re. "Science finds the mechanisms of the world. It isn't meant to describe a part of history."

That brings up two issues- the first is that, if it was true it wouldn't be relevant because religion still says things today that are plainly wrong today.

The second issue is that the statement simply isn't true.

Science does describe history. We can look back at the fossil record and see ancient history or, we can look back to things like the 'flu epidemic at the end of WWI and explain what really happened.

 

The mechanisms don't change so they are just as good at describing past events as they are at describing the present and the future.

 

and re.

"Just to make sure you know, I respect everyone's opinion,"

The age of the earth isn't an opinion.

The nature of evolution isn't an opinion.

The number of ribs men and women have isn't an opinion.

 

If I held the opinion that the atmosphere didn't really contain oxygen and that such an idea was a conspiracy, would you actually respect that opinion or would you respect my right to hold that opinion?

 

There's a difference between the two ideas.

If I was to suggest teaching kids that oxygen is a myth, would you be happy with that?

The usual quote here is "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

The truth is that religion gets things plainly wrong, and that's not " irrelevant to the matter." when the matter in hand is theistic scientists.

The willful propagation of falsehood is the antithesis of science so it's very much the crux of the matter.

You clearly are taking my statements out of context and make a generalized statement of those of theistic beliefs.

 

"The age of the earth isn't an opinion."

 

I would agree, but I never brought that up as a subject at all.

 

"The nature of evolution isn't an opinion."

 

I would also agree, I don't see why you keep bringing it up.

 

"The number of ribs men and women have isn't an opinion."

 

Yes, please stop bringing up the obvious. I don't see how it is an argument at all.

 

 

 

Science does describe history. We can look back at the fossil record and see ancient history or, we can look back to things like the 'flu epidemic at the end of WWI and explain what really happened.

Again, this was taken out of context. Science can describe and predict what had occurred, I would agree. However, the science lies in the mechanisms involved to help else conclude something about an event in history.

 

 

 

The mechanisms don't change so they are just as good at describing past events as they are at describing the present and the future.

I would fully agree.

 

 

 

If I held the opinion that the atmosphere didn't really contain oxygen and that such an idea was a conspiracy, would you actually respect that opinion or would you respect my right to hold that opinion?

If you keep bringing up the same argument over and over again, I am going to get so frustrated right now because it is completely redundant.

 

 

There's a difference between the two ideas.

If I was to suggest teaching kids that oxygen is a myth, would you be happy with that?

The usual quote here is "you are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

If you keep repeating the samething over....nevermind.

 

 

The truth is that religion gets things plainly wrong, and that's not " irrelevant to the matter." when the matter in hand is theistic scientists.

The willful propagation of falsehood is the antithesis of science so it's very much the crux of the matter.

But you just generalized religion all together as a falsehood. This, right here, is an opinion.

[doG]

You know what, since this comment has been brought up so many times, here is a gift to such occurrences.

 

 

EDIT: Just to make sure you know, I respect everyone's opinion, but seriously to keep bringing up the same thing over and over again just brings redundancy in counter arguments and it gets irrelevant to the matter.

But it's not irrelevant. How can certain people believe the bible is inerrant and divine AND call themselves scientists? A scientist would treat the bible as subjectively as everything else. Sure, there as scientists like Einstein whose work reflects adherence to scientific principle yet claim to have some deist or theist belief, but they're not bible thumpers. Then there are those that claim the Earth is only 6000 years old because the bible says so and that man walked with dinosaurs and they want to call themselves scientists. Their belief in the bible makes everything they claim questionable.

[John Cuthber]

 

But you just generalized religion all together as a falsehood. This, right here, is an opinion.

No I didn't. I pointed out earlier that at least some of religion is wrong and therefore the rest of it is untrustworthy.

So, once again I will ask the same question which you ignored last time.

 

So, since the scriptures are partly wrong, and entirely unreliable, what use are they?

[pears]

Their belief in the bible makes everything they claim questionable.

 

Surely a claim is questionable because of the evidence for the claim - not because of the other beliefs of the claimer? Why can't a claim be judged in isolation from it's owner?

[John Cuthber]

 

Surely a claim is questionable because of the evidence for the claim - not because of the other beliefs of the claimer? Why can't a claim be judged in isolation from it's owner?

Do you understand why the don't let mentally ill people vote?

[pears]

Do you understand why the don't let mentally ill people vote?

 

Have you read the question?

[John Cuthber]

I read the question. I also read the passage which led to that question being asked, which was

"Their belief in the bible makes everything they claim questionable."

 

If I see that someone is speaking French it's not unreasonable for me to conclude that they will (probably) be able to speak French tomorrow.

 

It's the sort of thing we do every day- we assume that we can predict future behaviour from what happens today.

So, if we see people regularly making irrational decisions, we think they are likely to do the same thing in the future.

That's not likely to be good for them, or for society.

So we arrange for other people to make decisions for them.

We put them in secure safe places (OK sometimes that gets messed up- but the idea is that those places are secure and safe).

 

And we don't let them vote because we know that people who make irrational choices are not the people best placed to decide on the nature of our government.

 

We do this because we see them making highly questionable judgements and, on that basis we classify those people as "people who make poor judgements"

We do classify the people on the basis of their actions- what else would we do?

 

Do you not see the similarity between "people who make poor judgements" and people who believe stuff that's known to be false?

Wouldn't it be sensible to check on their judgement before acting on it?

Isn't that checking the same as questioning their judgement?

Doesn't that amount to saying that their judgements are questionable?

That's what was said in the first place

[Iggy]

Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy.

 

'Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus' is fallacious.

 

 

Psalm 93:1 etc says "The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved."

 

But Foucault's pendulum shows that the earth does move- it rotates.

 

Now, if just one of those lines said it the earth wast stationary and another line somewhere said it moved then you could make a case for the description being poetic rather than literal.

It is poetic imagery. That chapter is written in parallelism -- synonymous parallelism (poetic verse), and 'the world cannot be moved' is in all likelihood an old Hebrew idiom... like someone saying "God has an axe to grind" and hearing you say "God doesn't have an axe". Too literal.

 

I can give you loads of concrete contradictions and outright false statements in the bible, but this one really isn't worth it.

[John Cuthber]

 

'Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus' is fallacious.

 

I know.

It's also irrelevant because what I said was "Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy."

So, nice strawman while it lasted.

Why did you bother?

 

My point is that, since at least some bits of the scriptures are wrong, you can't know which bits (if any) are true.

You need another means to check it.

One such mechanism is science.

 

If that looks a little familiar, it's because I said it in post 575 but,it seems you didn't read it.

 

On a related note (i.e. where you clearly didn't read stuff), when do you plan to apologise for slandering half the world?

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/page-23#entry768238

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/78072-theistic-scientists/?p=768404

[pears]

I read the question. I also read the passage which led to that question being asked, which was

"Their belief in the bible makes everything they claim questionable."

 

If I see that someone is speaking French it's not unreasonable for me to conclude that they will (probably) be able to speak French tomorrow.

 

It's the sort of thing we do every day- we assume that we can predict future behaviour from what happens today.

So, if we see people regularly making irrational decisions, we think they are likely to do the same thing in the future.

That's not likely to be good for them, or for society.

So we arrange for other people to make decisions for them.

We put them in secure safe places (OK sometimes that gets messed up- but the idea is that those places are secure and safe).

 

And we don't let them vote because we know that people who make irrational choices are not the people best placed to decide on the nature of our government.

 

We do this because we see them making highly questionable judgements and, on that basis we classify those people as "people who make poor judgements"

We do classify the people on the basis of their actions- what else would we do?

 

Do you not see the similarity between "people who make poor judgements" and people who believe stuff that's known to be false?

Wouldn't it be sensible to check on their judgement before acting on it?

Isn't that checking the same as questioning their judgement?

Doesn't that amount to saying that their judgements are questionable?

That's what was said in the first place

 

OK. Perhaps we need to clarify exactly what we are talking about here. Are we talking about bible literalists? Or inerrantists? I took the post to be about inerrantists but it goes on to talk about literalist interpretations so perhaps we aren't completely on the same page. If someone believes the earth is 6000 years old and makes scientific claims in the realm of geology, yes I can concede that I might not take their science claims seriously. (However scientific methodologies should have no problem clearing things up right?) But that is a narrower scenario than a general questionability over theistic scientists. A scientist might be an inerrantist without holding a literal view of the bible. Their work may be on a matter the bible never mentions. In that case I don't see how their beliefs prevents their effective work as a scientist.

 

The scientific method itself should be enough to disprove a claim.

[Iggy]

I know.

It's also irrelevant because what I said was "Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy."

So, nice strawman while it lasted.

Why did you bother?

 

My point is that, since at least some bits of the scriptures are wrong, you can't know which bits (if any) are true.

You need another means to check it.

One such mechanism is science.

Again, too literal. "Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus" is a type of argument, not something I specifically accused you of saying word-for-word.

 

Imagine if I said, "some parts of the bible are shown true, therefore the whole thing can be trusted". That would be just as bad as your statement "once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy".

 

There are roughly 70 books in the bible. There are some very good ones written by some very intelligent people. Look at what Solomon wrote:

The same destiny ultimately awaits everyone, whether righteous or wicked, good or bad, ceremonially clean or unclean, religious or irreligious. Good people receive the same treatment as sinners, and people who make promises to God are treated like people who don’t... The same destiny overtakes all... For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward

 

Ecc 9.2

 

Are you going to say that the above is untrustworthy because someone decided to put it in the same book as Jesus and heaven and reward and punishment and all that BS?

 

You should not, because this:

 

Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy.

Is fallacious reasoning.

 

My point is that, since at least some bits of the scriptures are wrong, you can't know which bits (if any) are true.

 

If that looks a little familiar, it's because I said it in post 575 but,it seems you didn't read it.

I did read the post which I replied to, thank you for asking.

 

You said both,

• "Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy."
• "Even if some bits of the (various) scriptures were correct by divine inspiration, you wouldn't know which bits were right and which were wrong."

I'm responding to the former.

[John Cuthber]

The latter is, of course, the reason why the former is true in this case.

So all that Latin stuff of yours was irrelevant.

 

If it was- as far as is known- totally accurate then you could trust it to be correct.

However, as at least some bits of it are known to be wrong, you really can't rely on it because you don't know which bits are wrong.

No part of them can be relied on without independent checking.

So, you cite some text and ask if I think it's true or not.

I might agree with it, or I might not.

What I can't do is trust it. I can't do what a "true Christian" would do and accept it as matter of faith because it must be true- it's the Word of God.

Because I don't know if it's from "part of the scripture that's true" or from "part of the scripture that's false" because they don't have handy labels.

I can, of course, read it and make up my own mind- based on other things.

 

That's my point- I never said the scripture is all wrong. I said it's all untrustworthy.

When I read bits of it, I have to rely on something else to tell me if I should accept what I read.

 

So, for the third time.

 

Since the scriptures are partly wrong, and entirely unreliable, what use are they?

Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[Iggy]

So, you cite some text and ask if I think it's true or not.

 

No, I didn't.

 

I'm asking if proving that part of the bible is wrong automatically makes the following quote untrustworthy. Not asking you what you think is true or not.

 

In other words, does proving one person wrong automatically make something written 400 years earlier by another author untrustworthy?

 

The same destiny ultimately awaits everyone, whether righteous or wicked, good or bad, ceremonially clean or unclean, religious or irreligious. Good people receive the same treatment as sinners, and people who make promises to God are treated like people who don’t... The same destiny overtakes all... For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward

 

Ecc 9.2

 

You already said it does. You said that finding some part of a collection of books mistaken makes the whole collection untrustworthy. You said, "Once you can show that some bits are wrong, you have shown that all of it is untrustworthy."

 

Do you not see how this is fallacious?

 

If it was- as far as is known- totally accurate then you could trust it to be correct.

That some parts of the bible are wrong isn't the same as it being totally inaccurate as far as we know. The corollary is therefore the following:

• If some parts of the bible are shown false then the whole thing is untrustworthy
• If some parts of the bible are shown true then the whole thing is trustworthy

I think both are mistaken

[Moontanman]

 

OK. Perhaps we need to clarify exactly what we are talking about here. Are we talking about bible literalists? Or inerrantists? I took the post to be about inerrantists but it goes on to talk about literalist interpretations so perhaps we aren't completely on the same page. If someone believes the earth is 6000 years old and makes scientific claims in the realm of geology, yes I can concede that I might not take their science claims seriously. (However scientific methodologies should have no problem clearing things up right?) But that is a narrower scenario than a general questionability over theistic scientists. A scientist might be an inerrantist without holding a literal view of the bible. Their work may be on a matter the bible never mentions. In that case I don't see how their beliefs prevents their effective work as a scientist.

 

The scientific method itself should be enough to disprove a claim.

 

 

Pears is of course correct, while I would question a scientist who held to fundamentalism, there are scientists who are indeed bible thumpers, in fact as i have pointed out previously Robert Bakker has two doctorates, one from Yale and one from Harvard and is arguably the most famous paleontologist on the planet and is also a bible believing Pentecostal Preacher... He says taking the bible as literal truth degrades it's eternal meaning...

 

Moontanman, on 07 Sept 2013 - 6:00 PM, said:

 

In the interest of fairness i think it should be pointed out that Robert T. Bakker, the paleontologist who was the model for the scientist in Jurassic Park is a Pentecostal Preacher and holds two doctorates, one from Yale the other from Harvard...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

 

 

 

Now, we know there are theistic scientists, so are we talking about how to justify belief in god or are we still debating the existence of theistic scientists?

[iNow]

Uh huh... If you say so. In support of that opinion, however, here are some facts regarding the internal contradictions in this supposed "inerrant and divinely inspired" book:

 

http://bibviz.com/

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/page/bible-contradictions

 

So, given the above, I am consistent in my opinion that it's a wonder that any modern day human being thinks it is somehow inerrant and divine.

[John Cuthber]

"I'm asking if proving that part of the bible is wrong automatically makes the following quote untrustworthy."

Yes.

It comes from a source that is known to get things wrong. I can not take it on trust that it is correct. I would need to check, it may be right or it may not be.

 

"That some parts of the bible are wrong isn't the same as it being totally inaccurate as far as we know. "

Well thank the Lord that nobody said that.

Why are you even discussing that?

It's because you like putting up strawman arguments, isn't it?

I'm not saying it's totally inaccurate, and I never did: that would be silly.

I'm saying bits of it are inaccurate, and you don't know which bits.

 

 

What do you consider the word "trustworthy" to mean?

To me it means that I can believe it without checking.

 

So, rather than the Bible here's a much shorter text to look at

 

At least some dogs are brown.

At least some cats are black.

One and one is two.

 

That text is trustworthy- you can rely on what it says.

 

Now let's try a different credo

 

At least some dogs are brown.

At least some cats are black.

One and one is three.

 

Now, the third of those statements is wrong.

Can you trust that trio of statements?

 

No, of course you can't- because it's not always right.

 

Can you trust the second statement in that trio? Yes- on it's own.

But you can't trust the whole group? No.

 

The religious scriptures are like that second trio.

 

So, for the 4th time

Since the scriptures are partly wrong, and entirely unreliable, what use are they?

Edited September 29, 2013 by John Cuthber

[doG]

 

Surely a claim is questionable because of the evidence for the claim - not because of the other beliefs of the claimer? Why can't a claim be judged in isolation from it's owner?

If other beliefs show that person to have questionable judgement then it makes sense to question all of their claims.

[iNow]

In fairness, we question ALL scientists claims, whether they are theists or not. The point, I think, is that seeing claims from a theist might warrant further checking and motivate the need for additional corroboration.

[Iggy]

"I'm asking if proving that part of the bible is wrong automatically makes the following quote untrustworthy."

Yes.

It comes from a source that is known to get things wrong.

What source?

 

If Jesus saying something wrong then makes a book written 400 years earlier untrustworthy... yeah, you'll have to explain.

 

I might as well make a post lumping together your posts with somebody else's, show that person wrong, and call you untrustworthy. I can't believe you don't see the problem with this.

 

Jesus saying "you'll get reward and punishment after you die" does nothing to make Solomon untrustworthy when he says "you won't get reward and punishment". Just because some Romans grouped the books together in a volume doesn't mean we get to call the whole thing untrustworthy.

 

I think you would agree with me if you weren't intent on arguing with me.

 

 

Well thank the Lord that nobody said that.

Why are you even discussing that?

It's because you like putting up strawman arguments, isn't it?

I'm not saying it's totally inaccurate, and I never did: that would be silly.

I knew you wouldn't get that, and you continue to do it here...

 

 

So, rather than the Bible here's a much shorter text to look at

 

 

 

At least some dogs are brown.

 

At least some cats are black.

 

One and one is two.

 

 

 

That text is trustworthy- you can rely on what it says.

 

 

 

Now let's try a different credo

 

 

 

At least some dogs are brown.

 

At least some cats are black.

 

One and one is three.

 

...The religious scriptures are like that second trio.

The bible is like the second trio, but the first trio is NOT its negation. It therefore doesn't belong in the argument. I might as well make a list of things that are wrong and say "it can't be trusted", then make a list that is partially correct and say that it therefore "can be trusted". I wouldn't be comparing like to like, and neither are you.

 

If you want to make a list of things that are entirely correct then you better be saying that the bible is entirely wrong. And, yes, I know you *are not* saying that. Just because you can't figure out how what I'm saying applies to what you've said doesn't make it a strawman.

 

Showing some parts of some books wrong doesn't mean that you can group those books together with a bunch of other books and call them all untrustworthy

Edited September 29, 2013 by Iggy

[John Cuthber]

"What source?"

The Bible.

 

You seem to be talking about the idea that "not all of it is true" does not mean "all of it is false"

OK, fine, we both know that.

 

"Not all of it is true" means " some of it is false"

 

The thing is that once some of it is false you can't rely on it for truth.

 

OK so "Showing some parts of some books wrong doesn't mean that you can group those books together with a bunch of other books and call them all untrustworthy "

But I didn't lump them together.

Whoever stuck them into two volumes and called them the Bible did that.

Or, if you prefer a less narrow approach, whoever lumped them together (with a lot of others) as "Scripture" did that.

What I'm saying is that , so long as there are bits which are wrong, you can't trust the whole thing.

Scripture - as a whole- is untrustworthy- even though bits of it are right.

 

If I says I don't trust a politician, I'm not saying he never tells the truth, I'm saying he sometimes lies.

 

Re "The bible is like the second trio, but the first trio is NOT its negation."

Once again, nobody said it was, so that's another strawman you are arguing about.

Similarly "If Jesus saying something wrong"

Who mentioned him?

Oh, it's another strawman.

 

Re

"Just because you can't figure out how what I'm saying applies to what you've said doesn't make it a strawman."

No, showing that it can't apply- for example, because nobody had mentioned Jesus or

[doG]

Showing some parts of some books wrong doesn't mean that you can group those books together with a bunch of other books and call them all untrustworthy

When the group of books is full of contradictions between them then it makes the accuracy of each questionable at best.