Ironworks Gaming Forum - One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28)

- - One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??) (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=83780)

You can, using the Imperical scientific method, test the theory of evolution, witch is my beleaf system. NOBODY can Impericaly test faith. As I said, you are talking phylosophy. Not science. There is a fine, but definete, line there.

Quote:

Originally posted by LordKathen:
I just went to a seminar about this 3 weeks ago, given by a scientist whom by chance is a christian.
I wish I had the layout of his work, but as I said before Theology is not science in the imperical manner we eccept today, the abbility to test and retest ones theory and observations independently from the origanator. You can only test biblical text with prayer or faith (phylosophy). In a sense, I can understand a christians point in saying that god is provable by prayer, becouse I beleave the mind is a powerfull tool in any hoping, healing, loving, or any other emotion humans ocomplish. I guess I could even say that is the "inner god" as I've heard before.

I quote myself.

Quote:

Originally posted by LordKathen:
You can, using the Imperical scientific method, test the theory of evolution, witch is my beleaf system. NOBODY can Impericaly test faith. As I said, you are talking phylosophy. Not science. There is a fine, but definete, line there.

Kathen, in accepting parts of evolution you are excercising faith. Evolution is a THEORY, by definition an unproven idea. It is not a THEOREM. THere are vast amounts of the theory that are not quantifiable. The single largest being YOU WERE NOT THERE TO SEE IT HAPPEN.

So for starters all your information is at least second hand or speculations on archaeology.

Secondly evolution theory is not a grand unified theory. It has no answers to the meaning of life, the existence of the soul, morality, no solutions to internal phychological issues, no self betterment principles. A CHristian CAN be an evoltuionist. The answers of evolution are the HOW, not the WHO or WHY. It in NO WAY conflicts with religious thought. If eventually proven true beyond doubt, it would merely provoke a readjustment to certain theological thinking, not the dismantling of it.

Can you not see this?

I can't believe you guys have spent all this time arguing over what is really seen, academically, as a simple distinction: "hard" sciences and "soft" or "social" sciences. My college had three "divisions." Div. 1 was "arts," Division 3 was "sciences" (math, physics, chemistry, biology), and the middle division, divison 2, was "soft" or social sciences (economics, sociology, religion). Isn't that really what we're talking about?

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I can't believe you guys have spent all this time arguing over what is really seen, academically, as a simple distinction: "hard" sciences and "soft" or "social" sciences. My college had three "divisions." Div. 1 was "arts," Division 3 was "sciences" (math, physics, chemistry, biology), and the middle division, divison 2, was "soft" or social sciences (economics, sociology, religion). Isn't that really what we're talking about?

That's what I've been saying Timber.

But it's more than that. Accepting theology as a science clearly involves something more for those who don't. Whatever it is I don't understand it.

Remind me again why we have the separation of church and state... ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by esquire:
Remind me again why we have the separation of church and state... ;)

[img]graemlins/awesomework.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by LordKathen:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
I can't believe you guys have spent all this time arguing over what is really seen, academically, as a simple distinction: "hard" sciences and "soft" or "social" sciences. My college had three "divisions." Div. 1 was "arts," Division 3 was "sciences" (math, physics, chemistry, biology), and the middle division, divison 2, was "soft" or social sciences (economics, sociology, religion). Isn't that really what we're talking about?

Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy.</font>[/QUOTE]AAAARRRGGHH!

FAITH IS THE RESULT! Faith and science are not opposites! Each use the other! Man this is frustrating Kathen!

I HAVE FAITH, and I USE SCIENCE!

You are telling me you're without faith? Fine. You say you rely on science? Fine. DON'T tell me what I do! I use both. They interweave and assist each other. HArmoniously. When I discover aspects of chemistry or biology I gain understanding of the Trinity for example. Triunity.

I use the science of psycholgy to understand myself. I use sociology to understand humanity. I use economic science to get ahead financially, I use theology for life/relationship enhancement, I use geography and biology to enhance my appreciation of the planet, and increase my theology.

Conjoinment, not seperation!

Shheesh!

You don't? Fine. DON'T PRESCRIBE YOUR REALITY AND METHODOLOGY ONTO ME.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[quote]
Quote:

Exactly!!! I live by hard science, literal testable IMPERICAL science. Not "soft" science, witch relies on phylosophy, faith, whatever. Can you not see this Yorick? This is what I have been saying all along. IMPERICAL science has no room for faith or phylosophy.

Wait a second! [img]smile.gif[/img] It would be a mistake to classify Social sciences such as sociology and anthropology as 'soft'. The reason why they differ from say chemistry or biology is because they are concerned with the study of groups of people, society, and development of culture --- but this is done using the scientific method.

Lets not get embroiled in semantics. Theology does not use the scientific method. Sure this is arguable, but if you got 100 clerics and 100 scientists and they took a vote they would agree with this.