So, this is floating around the Facebook, this morning...

The step that religion is missing, that scientists include is the experimentation. He draws up a theory, then he and experimental physicists work up experiments to try to prove/disprove the theory. If the evidence doesn't support the theory, he abandons it.

Quantum theories are backed up by a mountain of experimental evidence.

You start with experimentation? What are you trying to prove?
 
You start with experimentation? What are you trying to prove?

Prior theories.

Then, further experimentation proves the new theory. Alternatively, an unexpected phenomenon results from the experiment, and a new or modified theory is created.
 
I submit some are brought to science through innate feelings and follow that path because of what is first in their heart, not their head.

I think you're reaching, York. I don't think anyone has quantum theory, string theory, or any other theory "in their heart."

It would be hard to come to any of those conclusions without examining the evidence. Quantum theory is actually crazier than intelligent design. Hard to make that **** up.
 
I think what you might be thinking is that some don't believe in a god, and so they turn to "science." To which, I would say you are absolutely correct. The theories are still based nearly entirely in evidence, not in conjecture.
 
Prior theories.

Then, further experimentation proves the new theory. Alternatively, an unexpected phenomenon results from the experiment, and a new or modified theory is created.

I missed your other post, but agree it starts with an hypothesis which is most often based on prior theories. True, most scientists are willing to accept different results than they expected, but they start with an expectation of results, which I say is a belief.

In other words, we all choose to believe something, I believe I will have another beer.
 
I submit some are brought to science through innate feelings and follow that path because of what is first in their heart, not their head.

I think you are confused about the true meaning of a priori and a posteriori.

Most religious people are religious due to a posteriori events. All of science is due to a posteriori events. Very few attempts have been made at trying to make a religious a priori argument.
 
I think you're reaching, York. I don't think anyone has quantum theory, string theory, or any other theory "in their heart."

It would be hard to come to any of those conclusions without examining the evidence. Quantum theory is actually crazier than intelligent design. Hard to make that **** up.

Maybe not the actual theory, but the way to the truth is in their heart. I don't see someone spending a lifetime trying t prove something they don't feel strongly about in their heart. The problem is most intellectuals can't accept being emotionally driven and must stand on the idea that they are only working in the realm of the provable.
 
They would have to first predict what the unexpected outcomes of experimentation would be to have the results of those experiments "in their hearts" prior to then.
 
I think you are confused about the true meaning of a priori and a posteriori.

Most religious people are religious due to a posteriori events. All of science is due to a posteriori events. Very few attempts have been made at trying to make a religious a priori argument.

Maybe, I'm not that smart and get confused easily!
 
They base their "beliefs" in experimental results. Then they do get attached to them sometimes. That's all you can say.
 
They would have to first predict what the unexpected outcomes of experimentation would be to have the results of those experiments "in their hearts" prior to then.

Again, not the actual theory, but the way to the truth is embedded in their hearts. I say this is why there are scientists trying to prove the existence of God.
 
Maybe, I'm not that smart and get confused easily!

Lol. Your a smart poster, but those terms trip people up sometimes.

I get what you are saying with the scientists who already have it in their thought process that divinity is out of the question.
 
Lol. Your a smart poster, but those terms trip people up sometimes.

I get what you are saying with the scientists who already have it in their thought process that divinity is out of the question.

Well my education is a mix of psychology and strategic intelligence, not much room for philosophy or much hard science. Practical application has been mostly trying to guess what groups of hostile people will try to do against my friends, so it has always been important to understand beliefs and how/why people come to them. But, I can't really hold a candle to posters like you, thrasher, trut and others.
 
Well my education is a mix of psychology and strategic intelligence, not much room for philosophy or much hard science. Practical application has been mostly trying to guess what groups of hostile people will try to do against my friends, so it has always been important to understand beliefs and how/why people come to them. But, I can't really hold a candle to posters like you, thrasher, trut and others.

I'm jealous of your background. I'd love to work in intelligence for either the armed forces or the CIA. If I could just sign up, I would.
 
Viet Nam and Korea are graduation gifts? If you are serious, let's talk, maybe go through Jacob to get my email, or go to hammockforums.net, they still do pm's.

I'm serious. Vietnam was to travel the world, learn another culture, political science in real life, a break from school, and get out of the American bubble as I call it. I worked while in Vietnam to support my endeavor. Cambodia and Korea were just week excursions on the overall trip.
 
Where have I stated that Christianity is bad and Islam is good?

Christianity is good when it is practiced by good persons; Christianity is bad when it is practiced by bad persons. The same holds with Islam.

The religion does not make the individual practitioner good or evil.

I didn't say bad/good. I said bad/misunderstood. For someone who hinges on specific words people use and their definition of them, I'm surprised you missed it. But anyway, insinuation is important and something you do all the time. Go ahead and point out the last time you defended Christianity and its followers and insinuated that Islam and its followers aren't what they're cracked up to be.
 
Viet Nam and Korea are graduation gifts? If you are serious, let's talk, maybe go through Jacob to get my email, or go to hammockforums.net, they still do pm's.

I'm serious. Vietnam was to travel the world, learn another culture, political science in real life, a break from school, and get out of the American bubble as I call it. I worked while in Vietnam to support my endeavor. Cambodia and Korea were just week excursions on the overall trip.

.
 
Last edited:

VN Store



Back
Top