Another question. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then isn't god the most corrupt of all?

"if a science book told you Jupiter had 12 moons, would you believe it or would you wait to look them up with a telescope first?"

This is such an absurd direction to take this argument in. I don't (and no other serious scientifically literate non-scientist, and especially no real scientists) just reads one "science book" and accept their word because its a "science book". You go by a preponderance of evidence. If I read about some subject in multiple books, using multiple approaches and experiments, from reliable sources, I will grow more likely to accept whatever that particular theory is. Less reliable and plentiful evidence leads to more skepticism.

But I am always prepared to change my view on even the most rock solid theory in the face of new evidence. But not from just one little tiny bit of contradictory evidence, one crack must lead to many many more for the whole structure of a theory to come down. It will happen again, because it has happened before (many times). If science can be said to be a religion, it is not that we are wed to particular facts or observations or theories of our universe. It is the scientific method, the ability to gain predictive knowledge through observation, theory, and testing, and a have greater understanding of the interactions of the world around us.

And it works. And, in addition to helping explain the amazing wonder of the universe, it gives us cool things, like the computer you type on and the car you drive around in and the hot water that comes out of your faucet.

But science isn't a religion. It does not purport to understand the underlying nature of the universe, or whatever this whole thing is. It only attempts to understand the interactions as best we are capable of observing them, whatever they are. Science isn't the enemy of religion. But religion is much better served when it does not step into the realm of the provably false, it hurts your staying power.

By the way, we have discovered 63 moons on Jupiter, but most of them are incredibly tiny. We will probably discover many more. There are only four really big ones, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, and Io. Those, you can see with binoculars in your backyard. I urge to to try it, it's really quite beautiful to see it live. You can even take a picture and catch the moons in it, though you can't see them with the naked eye. You can also find some sweet pictures of them that we caught on the Voyager flybys on the internet if you google them.

Don't hate on scientists. Just because you haven't done your homework and accepted it on faith doesn't mean the rest of us just accepted it from our 8th grade science textbook too. And I'm not even a scientist, just a normal guy who finds the interesting.

abe,

"So, while I can't (easily) confirm that Jupiter has 12, it really isn't that big of a leap."

it's still a leap. key-point here.
at the moment, your state of mind, is no different than a theists'. you simply believe, because you have faith in science. (it's not a question of whether you can or cannot verify something) It's a question of having blind faith. again, in that respect you are no different than a theist who believes in the scriptures.

basically, for *most* people, reading the bible isn't all that different from reading a science book... they are based on the same faith principle.

orange,

I'm not against science. I am just against it as a means of faith. That might have been hard to figure out from my posts. As someone said, Science is a fantastic way to study (and thus, praise) God's creation.

And you can regard me as a scientist believe it or not (i'm an engineer but hey that is close enough!)

"basically, for *most* people, reading the bible isn't all that different from reading a science book... they are based on the same faith principle."

Science is not a faith! The difference between the Bible and a science book is that science books take their information from other science journals and proven facts, facts which have been written about and tested for decades. Any article is peer reviewed, helping to ensure lack of bias and accurate testing. I highly doubt the Bible is peer reviewed.

@dexter"I stated the assumptions at the onset. I assume rationality and consistent physical laws. Yes, there is faith in that.... And I realize that I cannot 100.0% know that gravity won't suddenly reverse itself - or that I imagined my life up til a second ago, or whatever. But it seems like a very solid working theory to assume that the universe is rational. After all, it fits all known data so far. And that is all we can ask of a theory - that it does a good job of explaining observed data. Will I ever *know* the truth? Not anymore than you. Besides - my world view assumes less than yours."

You cannot 100% know it, nor can you 1% know it. You can not know it to any positive percentage at all. Why does it seem like a very solid theory to assume that the universe is rational? As I've already pointed out, MOST possible universes that seem rational are NOT.

So, in your world view, you have absolutely zero reason for believing your main assumption to be true. In fact, in your world view, there is no possible way you _could_ have any reason to know if your main assumption was true. Your mind was created _entirely_ by mindless processes in the past, which themselves had no knowledge of or correlation to the future, so your mind could have no special knowledge or reason to believe that the universe is regular in any way. As we've seen, reason can't make up the gaps either. You're assuming something with no possible justification.

Your worldview assumes LESS than mine? Sorry. Once we start basing our worldviews on things we just assume with no possible reason for really knowing or suspecting their truth, it doesn't really do to discriminate one from the other.

In my world view, I can at least explain how I came to know what I know. I am not committed to the truth of any propositions which could not in principle have come from a reliable source.

Please read my post in its entirety.

Or rather, I think I need to explain my points more clearly!

When someone reads a science book, they don't look up the references/journals/test-papers for a specific fact. THEY TAKE THE INFORMATION AS A MATTER OF FAITH. the majority of them do do so. in that regard, it is not so different from a theist reading the Bible.

do I need to explain further?

@roller - If you tell these people that an electron-volt is equal to x, they WILL take it as faith, and never feel the need to test it. You are EXACTLY right! But their hypocrisy is utterly beyond their own understanding. It is amazing, isn't t?

It is not a matter of faith. The reason people believe it is because the information comes from years of testing hypothesises, years of peer reviewed articles and years of further research. Can the Bible be empirically tested, has it been peer reviewed (I'm sure Thor and Zeus gave it good scores) and can it lead to further research (theology is not research as it does not seek to uncover new things, though I could be wrong)?

Thanks for seeing my point krellin

you're missing the essence of the point largeham, sorry, I think it is because of my own poor wording.

@largeham, et. al. - Why the insistence on comparing a science to a philosophy? Christianity and other religions have more in common with philosophy than science. While theology is research, it is research into the lingustics of the original source material to gain a better understanding of what the original author intended. This is more akin to studying Homer or Aristotle or Plato than studying science,

@largeham: "I highly doubt the Bible is peer reviewed."

I hope anybody else thinks there's some humor in this statement. :-)

Sorry, I know that's not what you meant. It's just funny.

Well, so far science and the scientific method have put men on the moon, split the atom, and allowed for these electronic computers that we all love so much.

On the other hand, religion can chalk up ignorance, the Inquisition, 9/11, the Crusades, genital mutilation.

Just because you don't feel the desire or need to understand the world around you doesn't mean the rest of us have to abide by your medieval way of looking at the world.

Highly doubts the bible is peer reviewed??? LOL!!!! That is HILLARIOUS!!! There are teams and teams and teams of scholars that dedicate their LIVES to interpreting the Bible, translating it into new and modern languages, in TEAMS of peer-reviewed groups!! In fact, I have a good friend that JUST WENT INTO THIS AS A CAREER!!! Largeham, ONCE AGAIN, displays his *complete* ignorance...

@Draugnar...thank you. that finally made some sense.

@Jack...well, so far, simple faith in God, in Christ, has put men in Paradise. We *laugh* at your moon landing....

By the way, JACK, you, of course, failed to answer my last post...no doubt you specifically ignored it because you *could not* answer it.

@ PUTIN: "Another question. If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then isn't god the most corrupt of all? " Hey...if I convince enough people to repeat the catch-phrase "Putin is an ASSHOLE" does that make it so? I'm not sure I have ever seen the proof that your catch-phrase is a universal truth. Where might I find that, Mighty Putin? And....by the way...do you BELIEVE in UNIVERSAL TRUTHS???? That seems to go against your ideology.....kind of makes you a hypocrite...

krellin, "peer-reviewed" means two completely different things in the two contexts you just compared...

I'll come back to you Draugnar and semck, but one quick point before I eat. Krellin, if there is only one God, for the purpose of this point the Biblical God, that means he has no equals and no peers as there are on other gods. The Bible was written by God, who has no peers, therefore the Bible can't be peer reviewed as God's peers would be other gods, who, according to the Bible, don't exist.

@Jack - So you only see the negative in religion. What about the easing of suffering in third world countries or the abolition of slavery and the improvement of health conditions around the world. There is a long history of religious donations to Doctors Without Borders and Engineers Without Borders for instance and the Red Cross is a very clearly Christian organization.

I don't believe in the catch-phrase. But many here do.

What, the one where you repeated that I can't comprehend an infinite being?

Like I said. I don't have to... because he doesn't exist.

Again, as I've said repeatedly, just because you need an invisible friend doesn't mean the rest of us are still mentally six.

Ok. You say people are in paradise. Other sects say they're in Hell. What makes your particular superstition superior to theirs?

Just because you say something is true doesn't make it so. You have to... shocker here... provide some evidence to back up your claims.

Otherwise you're the internet equivalent of a guy screaming about how the world is going to end.

And don't even try saying "x million people agree". Mass delusions are still delusions.

That's actually exactly why I thought the remark was funny, largeham. Sorry, I guess you did mean it that way. Anyway, it struck me as humorous. I didn't really mean to make a big deal of it though.

there's nothing wrong with science, it's great! It's just bad when you use it as a means of faith in your life. it's not meant for that, it's meant as a tool for our empowerment (and it comes from our own God-given genius!

wow this has been going on for a while. I thought it would die out as a thread eventually

@largeham - You are *incorrect* with regards to who wrote the Bible. Men wrote the Bible. Much of the early OT was written by Moses from verbal generational stories passed down. Most of the NT was written by Paul. As such, there are flaws abundant throughout. For, even though inspired by God, man is a flawed creature and will still make mistakes.

".do you BELIEVE in UNIVERSAL TRUTHS"

I don't know what this means.

"Red Cross is a very clearly Christian organization."

And a very corrupt one. Didn't they steal money donated to help 9-11 victims?

this thread is hilariously entertaining