Evangelical Minister: Jesus Hearts Darwin

[Gnosital]

Ummm... lurkie, you got a little stupid on your face right there... you might want to wipe that off....

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

Sorry but these are interpretations and I wasn't talking about that.

Then, please, what were you talking about?

It seems to me that science qua science tests hypotheses about anything observable in nature. Given that, the statements in the Bible which concern natural conditions, events and processes (and which, incidentally proclaims its own absolute detailed truth) can be tested, they are scientific.

How is it an interpretation to identify the hypothesis that
"... the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day" Joshua 10:13? Why isn't it valid to use the scientific method to determine that, were the hypothesis true (as proclaimed in the book), the change in Earth's momentum would instantly liquefy the entire surface? Wow, talk about yer molten idols!

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

1)

2)

3)

4) Cheers

Ha ha, good one, Lurker. As long as you wish to respond this way, how about adding
5) which means the frequent complaint by you that we do not directly address the discussion points.

(Damn the four smilie limit!)

Sternwallow wrote

Then, please, what were you talking about?

I'm saying that the claims of Christianity don't require the denial of any scientific fact. It may require the denial of (non) scientific interpretation of said facts.

*Yodish*
The claims of Christianity don't require the denial of any scientific fact, I say. Require the denial of (non) scientific interpretation of said facts, it may.

[Sternwallow]

Lurker wrote

I'm saying that the claims of Christianity don't require the denial of any scientific fact. It may require the denial of (non) scientific interpretation of said facts.

So you say that either there are no scientific statements in Christianity or that the scientific statements that do appear are scientifically true.

If you credit the Bible as the source of our information about Jesus (there is no other), then all of the "claims of Christianity", if any, appear in that book.

If there are statements in the book which, without interpretation, are both scientific and wrong, your claim fails. I have cited several instances of such wrong statements. They are a small subset of the Biblical statements that are generally wrong.

If one takes current scientific knowledge and uses it to revise the meaning of Biblical statements, the Lily approach, that is a tacit acknowledgment of the basic wrongness of the standing text.

The Bible violates the "Non-Overlapping Magesteria" principle in all but a very few instances. If it had left out the laughably crackpot statements on physics, biology, cosmology, astronomy, history, archaeology, paleontology, mathematics, meteorology, ecology and geology, it might have been a viable (not necessarily valuable, though) body of religious, spiritual, supernatural and moral text (if the spiritual stuff was true, which also has not been established).

Sternwallow wrote

So you say that either there are no scientific statements in Christianity or that the scientific statements that do appear are scientifically true.

I assume you're talking about the bible, here. As far as I know, there are no statements stated in a scientific way, with scientific accuracy or with scientific intent. It's not a book of science.

Anyway, my reference to Christianity was a reference to basic Christian theology more than the biblical text.

If you credit the Bible as the source of our information about Jesus (there is no other), then all of the "claims of Christianity", if any, appear in that book.

Per the above, I was referring to Christian theology more than the biblical text. The basic/core beliefs as it were.

If one takes current scientific knowledge and uses it to revise the meaning of Biblical statements, the Lily approach, that is a tacit acknowledgment of the basic wrongness of the standing text.

Text is neither wrong or right on it's own. Our understanding of the text can be wrong or right.

The Bible violates the "Non-Overlapping Magesteria" principle in all but a very few instances. If it had left out the laughably crackpot statements on physics, biology, cosmology, astronomy, history, archaeology, paleontology, mathematics, meteorology, ecology and geology, it might have been a viable (not necessarily valuable, though) body of religious, spiritual, supernatural and moral text (if the spiritual stuff was true, which also has not been established).

I can understand your laughter given your understanding of the text. I'd probably join you in laughing. In fact I do join you in some instances. There's some goofy stuff out there and the fact that you agree with the goofy stuff tells us more about you than anything else. Strip away everything but the core beliefs taken from the "minimal facts" of Christianity and look at that. Are you still giggling?

Sternwallow wrote

So you say that either there are no scientific statements in Christianity or that the scientific statements that do appear are scientifically true.

I assume you're talking about the bible, here. As far as I know, there are no statements stated in a scientific way, with scientific accuracy or with scientific intent. It's not a book of science.

Anyway, my reference to Christianity was a reference to basic Christian theology more than the biblical text.

If you credit the Bible as the source of our information about Jesus (there is no other), then all of the "claims of Christianity", if any, appear in that book.

Per the above, I was referring to Christian theology more than the biblical text. The basic/core beliefs as it were.

If one takes current scientific knowledge and uses it to revise the meaning of Biblical statements, the Lily approach, that is a tacit acknowledgment of the basic wrongness of the standing text.

Text is neither wrong or right on it's own. Our understanding of the text can be wrong or right.

The Bible violates the "Non-Overlapping Magesteria" principle in all but a very few instances. If it had left out the laughably crackpot statements on physics, biology, cosmology, astronomy, history, archaeology, paleontology, mathematics, meteorology, ecology and geology, it might have been a viable (not necessarily valuable, though) body of religious, spiritual, supernatural and moral text (if the spiritual stuff was true, which also has not been established).

I can understand your laughter given your understanding of the text. I'd probably join you in laughing. In fact I do join you in some instances. There's some goofy stuff out there and the fact that you agree with the goofy stuff tells us more about how you think than anything else. Strip away everything but the core beliefs taken from the "minimal facts" of Christianity and look at that. Are you still giggling?

[Professor Chaos]

Lurker wrote

Strip away everything but the core beliefs taken from the "minimal facts" of Christianity and look at that. Are you still giggling?

[Kate]

Professor Chaos wrote

I kinda expected this. No worries, mate



* dang crappy hotel internet connection!!! my kingdom for a good connection!

[Kate]

[Irreligious]

Lurker, I know that, according to you, your theology is exempt from critique, but precisely what criteria do you use for determining its veracity if the scientific method does not apply?

Irreligious wrote

Lurker, I know that, according to you, your theology is exempt from critique, but precisely what criteria do you use for determining its veracity if the scientific method does not apply?

It's very open to critique, just read all the discussions around here. It's veracity is determined by inductive reasoning and a philosophical worldview that doesn't get clogged up by hyper-empiricism, hyper-scientism, hyper-skepticism and probably a few other -ism's.

** You're from Texas, right? I'm by Clear Lake now and the hotel here has a severe problem with their wireless internet -- Houston we have an internet problem. Sucks!

[Kate]

[nkb]

calpurnpiso wrote

the usual

Cal,
We are all intimately familiar with your pet hypothesis, there really is no need to keep reposting it.

However, your claim was that neurologists are starting to accept theism as a mental issue, and that just ain't true (unless you care to show us how you know that).