The contributions of Religion to sciences

[Robert.Evans]

Not exactly. Something is "factual" if it cannot be validly disputed.
fact
fakt/
noun

1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

The ToE has not been validly disputed, and verifiable evidence of an alternative has not been found. On the contrary, vast amounts of evidence has been found that supports the ToE, so I think that the word "fact" applies.

But, Dawkins doesn't speak for science in general. He is one man who happens to be an expert in the field of evolutionary biology. But, like every man, he should be looked at with skepticism too.

I answered you point .You are deflecting the point now.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can you at least provide a link to the "press" you are referring to?

Pretty easy to find really, first page. Haven't read it. But the main point said:

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"

 

[leibowde84]

Pretty easy to find really, first page. Haven't read it. But the main point said:

"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it
The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012 there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures
This means that the ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996"

link?

 

[leibowde84]

I answered you point .You are deflecting the point now.

How so. I answered your question directly. And, whether or not Dawkins claims absolutes in no way means that science adheres to authorities or absolutes, as Dawkins doesn't speak for science in general.

 

[Robert.Evans]

link?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

 

[McBell]

No change. What he has done is give the correct sacrifice.
He upheld and fulfilled the law. Everything else was just a shadow of the reality.

sacrifices were required then they were not.
That is change.
Though it is most comical to watch your mental gymnastics.

 

[Parsimony]

Religion opens the doors to exploring the greatest depths of reality.
It frees science from the restraints of always striving for a 'final explanation' that would best appear to 'make God redundant' in any particular field. e.g. static universe, classical physics, big crunch, gradualist evolution

I think this is primarily why most scientific progress has come from skeptics of atheism. They are free to look beyond the superficial explanation de jour.

Theistic scientists would just be replacing the bias of atheistic scientists (nothing is explained by God) with their own form of bias (X is explained by God). If you want to get rid of bias, the best way to go about it would be through truly agnostic scientists, or better yet, apatheistic scientists. Since that isn't really doable, biases have to be kept in check by scrutinizing the evidence (or the lack thereof) itself.

 

[paarsurrey]

Way to miss the point.
Though it is no surprise you ignore the fact that religion is the one making absolute claims while science is actually looking for truth.

Science does not look for the whole truth. Does it?
Regards

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Religion was instrumental in the origins/development of science. Since then, it has increasingly gone from at best mostly (if not entirely) unnecessary to scientific progress/thought to generally limiting scientific progress/thought.

 

[Robert.Evans]

sacrifices were required then they were not.
That is change.
Though it is most comical to watch your mental gymnastics.

I gave you the answer. Ignore it if you will.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Drinking H2O is good for you. Drink too much and you'll be sick and even die.

current CO2 levels are around 400 ppm, most plants originally thrived on far higher levels of 'pollution' , around 7000ppm CO2, and still prefer 1200-1500 ppm today.

Ironically through H20 IS the primary driver of the greenhouse effect- not CO2
That's why the computer sims need to use H20 in runaway feedback loops of self-amplification to achieve what 2 molecules extra CO2 in 10,000 of air never can- a noticeable change in the climate

 

[McBell]

Science does not look for the whole truth. Does it?
Regards

Do you use a hammer when scraping paint from the wall?

 

[McBell]

I gave you the answer. Ignore it if you will.

NO, you offered up a reply that was nothing more than you trying to justify your denial.
Now since you are not interested in an honest discussion, I shall allow you the last word.
Don't waste it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

NO, you offered up a reply that was nothing more than you trying to justify your denial.
Now since you are not interested in an honest discussion, I shall allow you the last word.
Don't waste it.

Now that is funny; YOU want a discussion??? Since when? And with whom? I gave you the answer. It is not my fault you can't understand it. Of course, if wanted to DISCUSS you could ask rather than assume. If you seriously think I have not answered it, then you ought to explain it better, hadn't you.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Theistic scientists would just be replacing the bias of atheistic scientists (nothing is explained by God) with their own form of bias (X is explained by God). If you want to get rid of bias, the best way to go about it would be through truly agnostic scientists, or better yet, apatheistic scientists. Since that isn't really doable, biases have to be kept in check by scrutinizing the evidence (or the lack thereof) itself.

I agree in theory, but in practice as you say- is there any such thing as a true agnostic?

So between the two positions:

one acknowledges faith, belief, the humility of studying a creation to the glory of it's creator, an inherently superior intellect to our own. Not for our own pride, book sales, awards. And so always willing to permit the possibility that we are fundamentally wrong, that there is MORE than meets the eye, something we don't yet understand.

The other by definition rejects the acknowledgment of belief in its own conclusion, rather assumes a default truth, intellectual superiority, the constant urge to claim the victory of a complete final explanation, and self glory.

I don't think there is much competition re. the more scientific approach here, and we have seen them compete on science's greatest playing fields; static universes v big bang, classical physics v QM

atheism v science

 

[McBell]

I agree in theory, but in practice as you say- is there any such thing as a true agnostic?

So between the two positions;

one acknowledges faith, belief, the humility of studying a creation to the glory of it's creator, an inherently superior intellect to our own-not for ourselves, or book sales and awards. And so always willing to permit the possibility that we are fundamentally wrong, that there is MORE than meets the eye, something we don't yet understand.

The other by definition rejects the acknowledgment of it 's own belief, rather assumes a default truth, intellectual superiority, the constant urge to claim the victory of a complete final explanation, and self glory.

I don't think there is much competition re. the more scientific approach here, and we have seen them compete on science's greatest playing fields; static universes v big bang, classical physics v QM

science v atheism

Still beating that dead horse?

 

[Parsimony]

Not for our own pride, book sales, awards.

So theists never do this but atheists do?

And so always willing to permit the possibility that we are fundamentally wrong

Only if you are talking about agnostic theism.

that there is MORE than meets the eye, something we don't yet understand.

And what about being an atheist prevents one from being like this as well?

The other by definition rejects the acknowledgment of belief in its own conclusion

Only if you are talking about gnostic atheism.

rather assumes a default truth

Theism does the same, only that its default truth is the opposite of that of atheism.

intellectual superiority, the constant urge to claim the victory of a complete final explanation, and self glory.

That is not a part of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in God and nothing more. Where do you get this from? Stereotypes? You don't think an atheist can be humble?

 

[Jumi]

current CO2 levels are around 400 ppm, most plants originally thrived on far higher levels of 'pollution' , around 7000ppm CO2, and still prefer 1200-1500 ppm today.

So now you are using the language of science. CO2 by itself of course isn't pollution. I haven't researched climate change or the climate change denialists views in depth so I'm keeping options open on that topic. You on the other hand seem convinced that it's wrong. What is the source of your information?

 

[Jumi]

atheism v science

You have great imagination.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So now you are using the language of science. CO2 by itself of course isn't pollution.

We agree, science agrees, unambiguous observation agrees, but the EPA, IPCC, Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio do not, so you're on the right side already!

The EPA formally declared carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant! The very thing that makes Earth green.

If being a greenhouse gas is what qualifies this, then H2O is a far greater and more threatening pollutant- since it is by far the greatest driver of the GH effect and primary driver of global warming computer sims.

How often have you heard this abbreviated to simple 'carbon pollution' by which Earth is populated by pollution based life forms and pollution breathing plants.

It's difficult to think of anything further from being a pollutant, than 2 extra molecules CO2 in 10,000 of air. Plants and life in general thrived under far higher levels of this 'pollution'
The Ordovician ice age had 10 times todays CO2 levels

I haven't researched climate change or the climate change denialists views in depth so I'm keeping options open on that topic. You on the other hand seem convinced that it's wrong. What is the source of your information?

I think the whole point of science is not having to take anybody's word for it, would you not agree?
Especially in such a politically charged topic. Look at the science itself, or lack thereof.

There are all kinds of conceptually mind boggling scientific truths which can be verified scientifically, no such thing for global warming, ghosts or astrology.
We only have the word of climastrologers, paranormal investigators and astrologers- all 'experts' in their fields after all!
The main difference being that the latter two do not accept political funding