Prove it [that so-called “science” and faith are opposed]. I totally disagree.
I think it is quite beyond your understanding and integrity, Buddy.
You misinterpret my position. I DID NOT SAY that science was 'godless' (in fact, I REJECTED that, and stated my belief that they are compatible).
I do not claim your science aims to prove the negative, the inexistence of something beyond nature. I claim that it simply treats the world beyond nature as if it does not exist. It begins with the position that materialism and only materialism underlies relevant knowledge here in nature, that nothing outside of materialism lies within its purview. It is what Eugenie Scott calls methodological materialism, as distinguished from philosophical materialism. It is in fact Applied Atheism, and when it takes millions of dollars of public funds to gain its support, it forces me to support what I know is philosophically wrong.
Methodological materialism essentially claims that science is partitioned from all but the study of materialism and comments upon nothing more, even should something more exist. Philosophical materialism claims that materialism is the basis of existence period, and that nothing more exists – or that, if it does exist we cannot know it since we are material beings. Even when accepting this false dichotomy we see that whether methodological or philosophical, materialism is opposed to faith.
What methodological materialists are trying to claim is that it is possible to by faith know Almighty God exists, that He created the universe and all things therein, while at the same studying His handiwork as if He doesn’t exist at all, though by faith you know He certainly does exist.
It is not only schizophrenic and disintegrated, it is also blasphemous since it intentionally ignores God Almighty Who the alleged scientist by faith knows exists. Your “scientists” are necessarily condemned.
Consequently, Science takes no position --- either for the proposition or against --- that there is a God.
Yes. It is completely absent of God – which makes it godless, philosophical atheism. And this is fine. But where it comments on human identity and origin, it necessarily runs against faith. No person of faith ought to be forced to pay for this atheist religion.
By the way, Johannes, if 'Nature isn't real'... then what is it? Unreal? Do we live in an unreal dream?
You don’t live at all. You are just a machine, a goofy one at that, the ultimate value of which is no more than silicon and carbon (which ultimately are without objective value). That is true of all nature. It is all dead.
Negative. Reproducible results do not rely upon 'faith'.
hehe. Very well then.
You deliberately misstate my position once again... Science is neither 'godless' nor necessarily 'godfull', per se.
If notions of God are by definition ignored by science, then science is without God. That makes it godless.
As I said, if conclusions are not based upon reproducible results from testing... if belief in a Super Natural explanation for things relies upon faith, not reproducible test results, then science can take no position pro or con that explanation. It is simply beyond the pervue of science.
And this applied godlessness is just fine. But where it comments on human identity, no human of faith ought to be forced to pay for what by faith he knows he is not.
I 'force' you to do nothing. I can only hope that you can think.
Very well then. I don’t even hope this for you, so utterly lost are you in the abyss of your own intentional ignorance. You need more than mere thought.
Repeat that to yourself the next time you get on an airplane, start a car, open your refrigerator, or go to a doctor....
This is just stupid, and we see the utter stupidity of it via your arrogant disregard for such innovations as fire, the plow and general domestication, all of which come from the same essential origin of rationality as the airplane, the car, the refrigerator and medicine. Unlike your godless science that necessarily ignores God, the science behind these innovations is empirical. We can all directly experience, test and enjoy it. Every single one of the innovations is based upon this science – every single one of them. None of them, not even one, makes a claim, implied or otherwise, about human origin and identity that is based upon the pure and absolutely untestable speculation about what happened alleged billions of years ago.
Now you are just insulting other people's religious beliefs....
Please. Such stupidity is nauseating. If a person by faith actually sees Almighty God and then commences to deliberately and chronically ignore Him through your goofy “science”, that person by default lives a disintegrated life – a life of intellectual and moral schizophrenia.
It is impossible for a scientist to have real faith. Faith is no mere thing that can just go dismissed. It infiltrates nature and changes human reality, integrating nature with the world beyond. No scientist of your sort can ever possibly experience this. If they hold to the dualism you are implying, they can at the very best live a lie about the importance and the reality of their faith.
Now you ALMOST get it... but you misstate things. Science does not 'demand' anything of a God. (But yes, if that God's existence is not detectable in the natural world by testing that results in reproducible results... then science can have no official position.)
And this obviously means your science cannot possibly see God unless God lays down a material path for your little “science” to follow. Should God be what by faith we know Him to be, then your goofy science is hopelessly cut off from Him. This is why science and faith oppose one another. They cannot integrate at all because faith sees what your “science” can never permit, even if it exists.
Very well then. Reality is so much grander than what your science can access. I certainly am not interested in convincing you otherwise.
Whatever. When you can prove this through testing, I'm sure scientists --- and everyone else --- will be overjoyed to sit up and pay attention.
And should I not be able to prove it by the only means they have determined acceptable, scientists will simply ignore it. They have established that their faculties are sufficient to digest reality and that understanding must come to them only in a certain way. There is just universal arrogance here. Their condemnation is sure and it is most deserved.
As I said... THE SUPER NATURAL IS NOT WITHING THE PERVUE OF SCIENCE. Don't take it personally, no one else does.
Well, I only take it personally when this godless science forces me to pay for it via public funds. Scientists are really dishonest here. They ought simply to come right out and admit their philosophical atheism. But as William Provine candidly admits, they won’t do it because they don’t wish to lose funding. It is dishonorable as are all leftists.
This state of affairs leaves the field open to mystics such as yourself (perhaps you should be happy).
When your religion steals money as it does, the field is not open.
Explain how this mutually 'non-infringing' policy would work. Posit that there is some social problem or issue under discussion by public leaders and the general public... and various religions have various official positions, and various scientists have various suggestions for policy actions to address the problem.
The Church should be free to declare truth on all things, without threat economic or otherwise, from any government or organization. The idea that the Church has to stay silent on certain issues, lest the state force it to pay money, is just wrong. If we wish a separation between Church and state, then the separation should be true. Where a church exists, there exists a sovereign body. All members therein would be tax-exempt and would not be citizens of the state. They would not be able to vote in elections or run for public office.
The Church, as a sovereign body, would be free to develop its own schools and institutions and even print its own money without any infringement from the state whatever – true separation of church and state.
(Are you plaining on moving off to some pre-technological world somewhere?
I moved long ago. The primary issue now is one of citizenship. I am still on the books as an American.
LOL! Well, as Mark Twain famously once said (snip)…
Oops. Twain was the guy who, after getting busted to pennilessness investing in a publishing machine with some 18,000 fantastically complex parts, remarked that he learned one should never invest when you cannot afford to and never invest when you can. So much for the much vaunted wisdom of Mark Twain. |
