Global Warming?

[toppop52]

Is there an American religious person that has not studied evolution for at least a decade? Everyone in America has been studying evolution since they started science classes in their education. It's in classes outside of science. Like history. Suppose you want to study psychology...wow, all based upon evolution. It permeates society. We have all studied that subject. We have even been tested, thoroughly, on our knowledge of the subject. You must learn that subject.

Objectivity. For many years the church has wrestled with the subject. The church, at large, has not dismissed the subject. The religious side strains for objectivity. And the religious side...has options.

The non-religious has no where else to turn. To be objective, and consider the Creator...is not a possibility for the non-religious.

The religious study both the scientific secular and religious. The non-religious study one side...while mocking the other.

Climate change. Is there an American religious person that has not been studying climate change since its conception? This, too, permeates society...from kindergarten on. In some homes, earlier, still.

For the secularist, its man or accident. The case for chance causing climate change, is strong. I see agenda, because the case for happenstance is largely ignored. Then there is another option for the religious. But that is summarily dismissed, by those who oppose the Creator. The religious studies all. The secularist can not. Much of the secularist solutions align with the agenda. Objectivity forces one to consider the connection.

Objectivity?

It is present in my learning.

The non-religious has no other option... To dismiss the secular view would be more difficult. Thus, it is harder for the secular scientist... to be objective.

But to be a good person of science ALL must be considered on equal basis until disproven/proven.

 

[EE_Bota]

I have studied both science and religion since early childhood, and I have resolved them like this: I generally look at science as just more information. The Bible does have a topic and it was not meant to be the repository of all human knowledge. For example, it mentions plants, but is not a book on botany. If mentions body parts, but it is not a book on anatomy. I see no reason that science and religion should be contrary since an all-powerful God can reveal or obscure, so why should what is revealed by science be held up to any unusual standard of skepticism when the standard level of skepticism should be sufficient if properly applied?

 

[toppop52]

It's beyond comprehension that you think you know exactly what the Constitution says. As if there are no "gray" areas. Its clear that for some who know EXACTLY what is in the Constitution that, if a court ruling is in conflict with your belief then the judge(s) were simply wrong.
Now does the right to bear arms mean we all have the right to furry appendages? How many arms and of what kind and does the bearer of such arms have to actually "bear" them in order to possess them? Also if the right to bear arms shall not be infringed we clearly all have the right to own nuclear and chemical weapons along with anything else we desire in armaments. By the way, please define "bear" and "arms" exactly as they are written or maybe there is a huge "gray" area as to what the intent of the authors was. The actions of Adams and Jefferson (and other contributors) satisfies me (and many others including judges) that the intent was "A Wall of Separation" of Church and State.

It seems reasonable to look at the actions and writings of the founding fathers in order to apply the Constituion's intent to the changing world....Or we could refer all questions to you. I argue that Jefferson's actions indicate his intent and clearly do matter.

Loren

So, in other words you can't logically dispute that Jefferson's letter has zero to do with the Constitution and was basically cited to muddy the waters?

 

[madmax12]

But to be a good person of science ALL must be considered on equal basis until disproven/proven.

I agree with that. Am I not complying with that?

 

[madmax12]

I have studied both science and religion since early childhood, and I have resolved them like this: I generally look at science as just more information. The Bible does have a topic and it was not meant to be the repository of all human knowledge. For example, it mentions plants, but is not a book on botany. If mentions body parts, but it is not a book on anatomy. I see no reason that science and religion should be contrary since an all-powerful God can reveal or obscure, so why should what is revealed by science be held up to any unusual standard of skepticism when the standard level of skepticism should be sufficient if properly applied?

Right. Well put.

I do not dismiss science as a subject. Math, biology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, engineering, archaeology... Science is an essential category of learning.

I think that is one of the strawman setups in this thread. You are either full on science or full on religious. To me they go hand in hand.

My specific disputes are with the way climate change and evolution are handled. I do not put those subjects in the same level as the sciences mentioned above. I find climate change science and evolutionary science severely lacking.

That's not a slam on science.

I am fascinated how we can talk right past each other.

That happens everyday in families, politics, and economic circles. It is a fascinating phenomenon. So much communication...and yet so little mutual comprehension.

I have expressed, what I think are unresolved questions in the opposing view. But those are non starter thoughts, for them. And my view, though it has been a long journey, has become clearer and more logical to me...for the opposition, it is the mere rambling of a fool.

On a lighter note, I enjoyed using the tractor today. Got some work done. Some parts of the day were warm. Some parts of the day were cold. The woodstove is cranked up, and the home is toasty.

You're all a great group here.

 

[madmax12]

You are correct that acceptance of Biblical stories requires a different set of "rules" than scientific inquiry. That is at the core of my disagreement with several posters here. I don't accept the notion that we use evidence and rules of logic to guide just about everything in our lives but that religion requires a suspension of such rules. Instead of being able to verify the correctness of any finding through empirical testing, religion tells us to just believe. It doesn't work for me. Plato described how it is sometimes necessary to tell a "noble lie" to provide a background myth that underpins good order in society. The Bible, to me, is such a "noble lie". It is well intended and has worked well for many many people and communities to provide a foundation for both community and individual guidance. In an era before astrophysics, DNA and paleontology, it could not be challenged with science. For me it is now a relic and I cannot accord it the same rank as scientific method in determining how best to understand the world we live in. If you believe the Bible is literally true then the inconsistencies with what science tells us means that either 1) the Bible is not literally true and modern science provides better explanations for our natural world and history, or 2) Science is unreliable and the Bible is correct on any point that disagrees with current or future scientific theory. As modern life is built on scientific discovery and engineering, I would prefer to have airplanes and cars and elevators designed, built and operated by people who trust and rely on the underpinning science. If carbon dating is fundamentally flawed, then a lot of science and engineering that underpin it are also flawed. And, there are other, non carbon 14 based dating systems that give equivalent results to C14 so presumably those are also based on flawed science. As the principles used to measure global climate changes over many thousands and millions of years refer to events that occurred more than 9000 years ago I suppose we should just completely reject all that science too as it is inconsistent with Biblical teachings simply by claiming there was even such a thing as earth or a climate before Adam and Eve. Bottom line for me: it is much easier to reject the Bible as literally true than to reject huge amounts of well documented and consistent science simply because it disagrees with a book patched together thousands of years ago doing their best to explain the world as best they could. I don't reject the Bible as a source of collected wisdom but I do reject it as literally true. I don't believe any rational scientist could do otherwise.

We may never agree. But I appreciate you explaining your views. I hope I have explained mine better than it appears I have.

 

[Loren49]

So, in other words you can't logically dispute that Jefferson's letter has zero to do with the Constitution and was basically cited to muddy the waters?

What part of "It seems reasonable to look at the actions and writings of the founding fathers in order to apply the Constitution's intent to the changing world" is hard to understand. Jefferson's letters and actions give a clear indication of his intent and his feeling that Government should not get involved in Religion.

Loren

 

[tcreeley]

Just because you don't believe in such things, that doesn't mean you should change the rule set associated with such beliefs. That's what many of you were attempting to do regarding Noah and the flood.

I call that the "Just because you haven't seen Santa, it doesn't mean he is not real." argument.

 

[madmax12]

I call that the "Just because you haven't seen Santa, it doesn't mean he is not real." argument.

Coal :thumbsup:

 

[EE_Bota]

I call that the "Just because you haven't seen Santa, it doesn't mean he is not real." argument.

Santa is real, and you likely voted for him.