[Prove it [that so-called “science” and faith are opposed]. I totally disagree.]
"I think it is quite beyond your understanding and integrity, Buddy.'
So... when faced with arguments you cannot refute, you resort to childish (and pointless) insults.
[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...."
Well, DUH! You are agreeing with my statements, that science cannot comment upon the Super Natural (since, it is not subject to testing), and can only concern itself with the Natural world.
"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."
Another 'Well DUH!' moment... if the existence of 'something more' were testable... science would be happy to take a crack at explaining it. But, as long as this 'something more' (the Super Natural) remains untestable, and explanable only by Faith... then science cannot comment upon it --- either pro or con.
[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."
A direct lie. 'Atheism' states that there IS NO GOD. As I have already explained, ad naseum to you... merely saying that --- as long as the Super Natural remains beyond the limits of testing, science CANNOT take a position upon it --- is MOST DEFINITELY NOT THE SAME as stating affirmatively that there "is no God".
Time to quite lying, Johannes.
[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."
You are lying again, I believe. If you truly believe that 'all is DEAD', we are not 'alive', then what is your objection to birth control or abortion? (Surely your statement above is misstated.)
By the way, I agree that living organisms are 'machines' (albeit, of biological origin and operation), and I have no problems envisioning 'thinking machines'....
You previously said: "there is no real knowledge - at all."
Now you say "we are not alive."
(I can only wonder... do you live [pardon the use of the word "live"] as some sort of a Dervish?)
[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."
Not 'Godless' (I see no contradictions between science and religious beliefs in God... scientists are as free to believe in a Creator as anyone else). It is merely that the Super Natural remains ABOVE AND BEYOND the abilities and the reach of science... as long as it remains untestable.
Merely because science cannot confirm or deny any of the countless Super Natural claims of religion, does not mean that scientists cannot have Faith in any of these Super Natural claims that they personally believe in --- since the exact SAME LEVEL OF PROOF is available to them, as is available to anyone else: FAITH.
"Then "science" is just the study of ignorance."
[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."
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Pardon me for not exhaustively listing EVERY SINGLE TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE HISTORY OF MAN! I'm sure you got my point --- before you proceeded to IGNORE IT, LOL!)
"Unlike your godless science that necessarily ignores God,"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LIE, REPEATEDLY EXPRESSED!!!!!!!!!!!!
"the science behind these innovations is empirical."
Also a lie (claiming that science doesn't rely upon empirical methods). This is your most ridiculous, 'way out in left field' claim of all, perhaps.
Science can ONLY utilize empirical and logical proofs. These are it's tools.
"It is impossible to be a consistent modern "scientist" and person of real faith...."
[Now you are just insulting other people's religious beliefs....]
"Please. Such stupidity is nauseating."
(Actually, your religious bigotry is what's 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."
If a person was conscious of 'seeing God', and then denied it... that person would be a liar. No more, no less.
That makes no statement upon 'science'.
"It is impossible for a scientist to have real faith."
Mere religious bigotry ('if you ain't in MY SECT, you are faithless')....
[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."
(No need to 'ignore', they might even personally believe. It's just that science itself can have no authoritative comment as long as testing confirmation and reproducable results are not possible.)
"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."
LOL!!!!!! (At least they don't think that 'there is no knowledge and everything is dead'! Now, as far as YOU condemning them to Hell for that, I think that they can rest pretty easy on that score, realizing that the odds of you winding up in a Rubber Room are vastly greater....)
[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."
'Science' is 'forcing' you to pay for something? What?
[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."
I believe you are confused again, Johannes. Science is not a 'religion'... and I'm not especially aware of science having a major roll in Highway Robbery, or whatever you are alleging....
[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. "
Churches DO THIS, ALL THE TIME. They speak out, issue official proclaimations, etc... Protestant denominations, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Shia, Sunni, Hindu, etc., etc., in near countless permutations.
Mostly, any 'threats' to them come from differing religious denominations, or from governments allied with, or controlled by, a differing religious denomination!
"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."
Ah... so you are objecting to the principles enshrined in our American Constitution!
I suppose you should move to amend it then.
If you believe that 'all church members should not be citizens of the State, not vote, not pay taxes, print their own currency, etc.' (guess that means no police, fire, or military protections for Baptists, either <G>), then you should go ahead and try to convince you fellow ('temporary', LOL) citizens to support this radical change.
If memory serves, I believe we fought a fairly destructive Civil War over less far-reaching attempts to dismember the Union....
Lot's o'luck! (I can see that rubber room looming prominently in your future, <G>)
(Are you plaining on moving off to some pre-technological world somewhere?
"I moved long ago."
(Somehow, I distrust the honesty of your answer... in that you were ABLE TO USE A COMPUTER TO REPLY TO ME!)
"The primary issue now is one of citizenship. I am still on the books as an American."
... Yeah... I can just SEE the patriotism rolling off of you....
"Oops. Twain was the guy who, after getting busted to pennilessness investing in a publishing machine.... So much for the much vaunted wisdom of Mark Twain."
(Even Geniuses have been known to screw-up in the stock market. Doesn't negate the inherent truth of his comment that all religions seem to claim that they alone have the one true way to heaven....) |
