Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolutionism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Fixing)
('Weak Atheism': Most of your response was your opinion or factually incorrect.)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption.  In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::: Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption.  In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::: This is nonsense.  All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments, and so forth.  Your second sentence is wrong.  You don't have to accept that God exists ''before'' you are able to conclude that God was responsible.  All you have to accept is the ''possibility'' that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that ''possibility''.  It is rejection of that ''possibility'' that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::: This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong:  you don't have to accept that God exists ''beforehand''.  If the ''evidence'' points to God, why not accept that conclusion?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
  
:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
+
:::Especially given that scientific endeavour [[natural science#beginnings|started]] because of a belief in God ...[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century).  I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century).  I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::: Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries.  The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes.  The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
  
:::and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
+
:::... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly.  Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly.  Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::: Despite your opinions, the ''documented facts'' of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God.  Science ''assumes'' that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption.  It also ''assumes'' that the laws of physics have applied for all time: scientists have not gone back into the past to check that.  It also ''assumes'' that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply ''today'' to calculate required strengths and stresses and ''assume'' that they will continue to apply tomorrow.  Clearly that is ''not'' "observation".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::No, that atheists ''choose'' to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
  
 
::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'.  'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God.  It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'.  'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God.  It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. [[User:Urushnor|Urushnor]] 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::: 'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ''ignore'' or ''are unfamiliar with'' or ''reject'' the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 09:46, 21 April 2008

Talk:Evolutionism/Archive 1

Code tags

I've been wondering for a long time, is there any particular reason this artice uses <code> tags to produce monospaced text? Philip J. Rayment 02:10, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

'Weak Atheism'

Philip, you are obviously not familiar with 'Weak Atheism'. Unlike 'Strong Atheism', which makes a positive statement about the non-existence of God, regardless of the evidence, this states that there is probably no God as there is no objective proof of God. The 'world view' is dependant on the evidence, or lack of evidence, as is the science, so I fail to see how, in this case, the 'science is based on the world view', as you altered it to say. You appear to believe that the only difference between 'Strong Atheism' and 'Weak Atheism' is the strength of the assertion that there is no God, whether this fits in with the evidence or not. This is not the case. Urushnor 11:58, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

The article already said "Thus science is done on the basis of there being no God". Now, they may not hold the no-god view strongly, but if the science is done on the basis of there being no God, then it is being done on the basis of naturalism, just as for strong atheism, which means that the worldview is the basis for the science. Philip J. Rayment 11:52, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
And the reason that the science is done on the basis of there being no God is there is no solid, objective proof that there is a God, and, thus, to follow proper scientific procedures and processes, you cannot base anything on the idea there is a God until you prove there is a God. Thus, 'weak atheism' and science follow exactly the same principles and procedures. If you come with solid, objective proof of God, then you can start doing science on the basis of that 'fact', and most 'weak atheists' wouldn't be atheists of any kind any more. Urushnor 13:04, 19 April 2008 (EDT)
If there is no proof of a God, and no proof of no God, why is "no God" the default option? [User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Because you cannot do any proper science on the basis of an unproven assumption. In this case, in order to base anything on the idea that 'God did it', basically, you have to assume that God actually exists. Urushnor 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
This is nonsense. All science is done on the basis of unproven assumptions, such as the assumption that the laws of physics are constant, the assumption that we can trust our senses in doing experiments, and so forth. Your second sentence is wrong. You don't have to accept that God exists before you are able to conclude that God was responsible. All you have to accept is the possibility that God actually exists, and there is nothing unscientific in accepting that possibility. It is rejection of that possibility that means that atheism—strong or weak—is basing its science on ideology. Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
And why is this "proper scientific procedures and processes"? Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Because proper science is based on evidence, not faith. Indeed, step one of the scientific process, as taught in science classes the world over is 'examine the evidence'. Urushnor 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
This is wrong for the same reason that the second part of your previous response was wrong: you don't have to accept that God exists beforehand. If the evidence points to God, why not accept that conclusion? Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
Especially given that scientific endeavour started because of a belief in God ...Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
That's only if you define the whole of science as what most people define as 'modern science', and, even then, that statement is rather debatable, especially considering the opposition that religious authorities have had to many areas of scientific research going right back to the dawn of modern science (the article you linked to, for example, states that 'science proper' started in the 16th century, dismissing the achievements of the various ancient thinkers as being mere 'scholarship', and the first well-known conflict between modern science and religion was Galileo, who first got into trouble with the Church in the early 17th century). I would say that modern science started as a result of people wanting to know, for sure, how the world worked, rather than relying on faith that their holy texts were correct, which quickly led them into conflict with the church. Urushnor 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Ignoring your semantic quibbles about terminology, you have your history wrong, thanks to anti-Christian propaganda through the centuries. The religious authorities were very supportive of science, and the dispute with Galileo was not due to his science, but with things like personality clashes. The rest of your response was basically to offer your own subjective opinion and a straw-man argument about faith and motivation. Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
... and is still based on assumptions (such as an orderly universe) that only have foundation in a belief in God? Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
The idea that someone could ONLY believe in an orderly universe due to a belief in God shows a staggering narrow-mindedness and ignorance of science, to put it bluntly. Many of what you appear to call 'assumptions' made by scientists about the orderly systems that are in the universe were obtained through observation, examination of evidence and experimentation. Urushnor 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Despite your opinions, the documented facts of history are that science (or "modern science" if you prefer) began because of the Christian worldview of an orderly universe created by an unchanging God. Science assumes that the laws of physics, for example, apply throughout the universe: scientists have not gone throughout the universe to check that assumption. It also assumes that the laws of physics have applied for all time: scientists have not gone back into the past to check that. It also assumes that those same laws will apply into the future, so when they build bridges, etc., they use the laws that apply today to calculate required strengths and stresses and assume that they will continue to apply tomorrow. Clearly that is not "observation". Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
No, that atheists choose to take a naturalistic approach means that they are basing their science on their ideology. Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
Again, you show you are not familiar with 'weak atheism'. 'Weak atheists' are atheists due to a lack of evidence in God. It is the evidence, or lack of it, that has persuaded them in this, not, as you stubbornly continue to state, the other way around. Urushnor 12:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)
'Weak atheists' are atheists because they ignore or are unfamiliar with or reject the evidence for God—there is no shortage of evidence—and therefore adopt a position of naturalism, basing their science on that ideology. Philip J. Rayment 11:46, 21 April 2008 (EDT)