Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

The nature of the posts of those who embrace scientism.

Translation: "My unspecified opinion about the nature of the posts of those who embrace my personal re-definition of scientism (that no-one I can think of actually embraces in any case)."

Thought so.

[Maeght]

It's my opinion based on the havoc scientism has wrought on it's users on this forum.

Examples?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Examples?

Oh the optimism you dear sweet boy you.

Here's how it works:

Step 1: Vladdo makes up his own personal meaning for the term "scientism". It's hard to tell what it is at any given time because it moves around a bit, but essentially it's something like "thinking science has or will have the answers to everything" rather than its correct meaning of, "giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science".

Step 2: He then accuses others of subscribing to his personal version of the term, even though those people have never said any such thing.

Step 3: Then he hits those people with, "how can you know that though?", "that's self-validating" or other such stupidities.

It's deeply dishonest (which is why he won't be able to provide any examples) but that's his schtick nonetheless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,


Oh the optimism you dear sweet boy you.

Here's how it works:

Step 1: Vladdo makes up his own personal meaning for the term "scientism". It's hard to tell what it is at any given time because it moves around a bit, but essentially it's something like "thinking science has or will have the answers to everything" rather than its correct meaning of, "giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science".

This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf. When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.

[floo]

This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf. When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.

Science has a chance of coming up with the answers, religion has no chance at all.

[wigginhall]

I wonder if that is so Wigginhall. To me there is very little critique of secular humanist techniques but immediate knee jerk reaction against religion. Would you say that there are any simple therapeutic techniques based only on the scientific method?

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Where is there a knee jerk reaction?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Science has a chance of coming up with the answers, religion has no chance at all.

Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure what you mean here.  Where is there a knee jerk reaction?

There is suspicion of any spiritual healing. People only really accept the notion of mechanistic, chemical and methodological healing. And yes I am contrasting spiritual with mechanism, one size fits all methods and chemistry.

Nothing wrong with them but you need the human touch too and many patients are of a spiritual bent or find that in themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

This is just you putting words in peoples mouths which is almost as annoying as answering on other peoples behalf.

He lied. You're the one who's consistently abused the term "scientism" remember?

When you think science has or will have the answers to everything you are giving undue weight to the methods and findings of science.

The lack of self awareness is deep here. Yes you would be, but no-one here does that do they - that's just the meaning you falsely ascribe to people in order to attack them oh mendacious one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,

So funny, albeit unwittingly.

[Maeght]

Any examples of the havoc scientism has wrought on it's users on this forum please PF.

[wigginhall]

There is suspicion of any spiritual healing. People only really accept the notion of mechanistic, chemical and methodological healing. And yes I am contrasting spiritual with mechanism, one size fits all methods and chemistry.

Nothing wrong with them but you need the human touch too and many patients are of a spiritual bent or find that in themselves.

I am still struggling to see where you see this happening.  Most therapists that I know talk about emotional and psychological healing.  And of course, they use the human touch, therapy works via relationship.

[Owlswing]

Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,

Wheras, of course, you are Pure religiion. Pure Antiscientism.

[jeremyp]

Pure scientism. Pure antireligion,

Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wheras, of course, you are Pure religiion. Pure Antiscientism.

Happy to be antiscientism. People like yourself who don't seem to know the difference between science and scientism don't help in discussions like these.

[Spud]

Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Tell us then how religion has a chance of finding the answer. Include the steps you would use to verify that the answer religion finds is the truth.

You are confusing scientism with science.

[ippy]

I am still struggling to see where you see this happening.  Most therapists that I know talk about emotional and psychological healing.  And of course, they use the human touch, therapy works via relationship.

Is there something you're not telling us Wiggs? Only you seem to know a few therapists?

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

You gather evidence by scientific methods, degelop a theory to desribe the observations and test that theory. Its called science.

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

Religion tells us nothing. It is an expression of beliefs not facts.

[ippy]

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

What an unbelievably naive, post, even Vlad's silly ramblings can't top this one of yours Spud.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What an unbelievably naive, post, even Vlad's silly ramblings can't top this one of yours Spud.

Regards ippy

I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.

You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.

[ippy]

I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.

You can try to answer/get round any of this or go down the pub. I know what Bertrand Russell would have done and it's not the one that involves talking except to order a long chilled one.

You're in good company Vlad, you're welcome to each other.

Regards ippy

[Spud]

I'm afraid I back spud here. If science is the study of nature in the context of scientific laws then what can it say about any situation where there is no nature or no laws? In short nothing to study itself.

Well put, thanks.

[floo]

If Littleroses was referring to understanding how the universe came to exist, I don't think science has a chance, because we are part of the universe and so we cannot discover by scientific experiments how it arose. For example, for all the theory about how stars form from clouds of dust and gas collapsing, nobody has yet observed this happening (correct me if I'm wrong). We weren't there and so we have no way of knowing. Nobody observed a mars-sized planet crashing into the earth to form the moon (what is the chance of that happening anyway?) so we can't know that this ever happened.

Religion on the other hand tells us all we need to know: that there is a creator and he is personal. Religion (well the Bible anyway) tells us that God intervened in peoples' lives, and he can intervene in ours too (sorry for any cheesiness there) to prove to us he is real.

Really? There is no evidence to support your statement.

[wigginhall]

Wow, is Spud really saying that because we haven't been present when stars form, therefore it didn't happen?   Gordon Bennett.  I thought I'd seen everything.   So only things that I experience, can be counted as 'true'?   That sure narrows it down a bit.  How about Christ's crucifixion then?