Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate

[Ray]

Well, I don't know the books you've purchased (or even if you actually are attenting college as you claim).

Personal attacks are not part of the scientific method. You can verify that I'm enrolled but it's not important.

However, if I were to make a venture, my guess is you are horridly misinterpreting the actual point the authors were trying to make.

Venture all you like, I'm interpreting correctly.

The point of the scientific method is to validate that which is testable and falsifiable. If what you are calling "miracles" or "supernatural" cannot be tested, then scientists don't concern themselves with them.

A person with your vocabulary ought to know what "miracles" and "supernatural" means.

Your background is clearly not in developmental psychology.

Yours is? Lets see, if you were born in 1982 that makes you about 23? While there are many young people who are geniuses and have great accomplishments most people your age are just finished with a bachelor's degree. My background is manufacturing.

You should look up on traditional critiques of Jean Piaget's "underestimation" of infants. This is where you will find most of the studies concerning the inborn cognitive abilities of human beings (as infants). The actual meat of the critiques is that (akin to Piaget's overarching theory of constructionism) infants are inborn with the capacity to take in new sensory and perceptional data, 'integrate' it into an organized view of the world, and continue the process.

You should see my 5 children and 8 grand-children. Whatever misconceptions I had about infants and child development were cleared up with more than just reading critiques of studies.

This process of integrating a posteriori knowledge into one's view of the world is what most of us call "the scientific method". It doesn't have to have laboratories and microscopes to be science.

If you're a scientist and most scientists agree with you then you must be right. But what I see is on university web sites, and in my text books, is: observe, hypothesize experiment to verify; and create a theory. If you think you can use "most of us call" as a means of defining something then the bible must be historically accurate because the poll says most Americans believe it is.

Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!
Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.

Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

 

[heretic888]

While one can only agree that falsifiability (it must be possible to prove that a proposition or theory is wrong) is essential to scientific method, the claim that people are hard-wired for something like science (a claim Freud also made, when he described Little Hans as, "the little scientist") suggests some of the holes in science as a way of knowing.

Mostly, it's because this drags an assumption (people are naturally scientific) right into the middle of the claim that science is purely logical and purely conscious.

If you'll actually look at what I said in context, I said infants are born with the capacity for the scientific method --- if we define the scientific method as actively seeking out information in the world, integrating it into an organized worldview, and continuing the process. I didn't say nuthin' about no organized scientific disiplines or whatnot.

This is nothing new, of course. Its just Piagetian theory, revisted. And, as Piaget pointed out, this inborn capacity won't be developed at all if the little kiddy doesn't have the appropriate environment to encourage the development of such (i.e., "nature" and "nurture" interacting with one another).

One tends to agree with that assumption, of course. If you look at kids, they seem to be running all sorts of tests on themselves and the material world--but that's just personal observation, made from a certain viewpoint. And it's a problem in the middle of an argument that the, "other side," merely rests its claims on biased and untestable assumptions, as opposed to a science that is all about the abolition of any viewpoint at all so that "the facts," can emerge as what they always already were.

Ummm... right.

Look, Robert, people aren't conjecturing this stuff out of blue. There is a whole body of experiments and studies that have been looking into this stuff since Piaget developed his theories, which is why I brought up the critique that Piaget "underestimated" the congitive capacities of infants. That critique is borne out of the conclusions of these experiments.

The whole general idea was that infants are essentially born with a "chaotic" or "unorganized" view of the world, a presumption that Piaget also made. We now know this is untrue --- even newborn infants are intimately involved in "integrating" new information into an "orderly" fashion.

On the other hand, the claim that living things evolved from previous living things has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. Creationists simply refuse to look at the evidence (if I don't see it, it's not there), most notably in the completely wacko claim that there are no "missing links," no transitional forms, in the fossil record. Or they insistently claim that because evolution continues to develop as a scientific theory, it must be wrong--when in fact the core of what Darwin says really hasn't changed at all.

Yup. Agreed.

I still say that if you're religious and you insist upon rejecting the products of the human intellect and the nature of the material universe, you're missing the point. Back when humanism and science started as developments in Christian thought, they simply said that the Author of all things left us the Bible and the universe to read, so that we could learn and try to grow up. And they thought that if we didn't understand how the two Books fit together, it was because we were mortal and stupid--not because the Author screwed up.

Yup again.

Laterz.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Gosh, was Piaget a developmental psychologist? They didn't tell me that back in '78, when I was reading his stuff for the first time in Elizabeth Bates' dev psych class back in university.

That's just the darndest thing.

 

[Ray]

If you'll actually look at what I said in context, I said infants are born with the capacity for the scientific method --- if we define the scientific method as actively seeking out information in the world, integrating it into an organized worldview, and continuing the process.

Maybe we should define it as eating ice cream and meet at Dairy Queen after work? Hey, we could try using the accepted definition.

Infants, normal infants, are born with the capacity to develop a great many things. If we can say "infants can grow to use the scientific method" then can we also use "infants can grow up to become murderers?" "Infants can grow to use the scientific method" has nothing to do with whether the bible is historically accurate or not.

You are an expert on child development, history and the bible. How nice for you.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ray's comments in bold:

You should see my 5 children and 8 grand-children. Whatever misconceptions I had about infants and child development were cleared up with more than just reading critiques of studies.


Sorry, Ray...I'll pipe in here and say I can't accept that. Raising five children and being a grandpappy doesn't qualify you as an expert in child development. It doesn't necessarily qualify you as anything, other than a certifiable sire.

You might have been an excellent parent and are now a doting and loving grandfather (I would hope so), but on the other hand you might have dropped the ball and passed on countless neurotic behaviors to your progeny. We here don't know which is the case, or if the truth lies somewhere in the middle insofar as your parenting skills. Suffice it to say such information as you might provide is anecdotal, and your experience and performance as a parent--for good or ill--are still but yours. It counts for something, anecdotal or not, but it doesn't carry enough weight for you to casually dismiss Heretic's comments.


You are an expert on child development, history and the bible. How nice for you.

As to whether he is an "expert" on any of these issues is debatable I suppose. Whether he is well read in these areas is glaringly apparent.

You've challenged his experience in such matters, indicating his youth and implying that ought to disqualify his comments. Now you're flippantly suggesting Heretic is claiming expertise in areas when he has done no such thing. What knowledge he has, he has. You have the choice of dealing with it effectively, or not. Mockery doesn't cut it.

If you can't handle him, withdraw and concede his greater breadth of knowledge on the topic. If you stay to debate him, arm yourself better.

That said, I'll stand back and watch the game. Some interesting exchanges here.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Ray]

Sorry, Ray...I'll pipe in here and say I can't accept that. Raising five children and being a grandpappy doesn't qualify you as an expert in child development. It doesn't necessarily qualify you as anything, other than a certifiable sire.

Agreed: raising kids doesn't qualify me as an expert in child development. Neither does reading critiques of studies by psychologists (as heretic seems to have). After having had to deal with "experts," I've found that most of those who haven't had hands-on practical application don't usually understand; they parrot what they've been taught. Not that Heretic doesn't understand what he says. IMO, The best experts are those that have learned the principles and gotten dirty as they apply them.

As to whether he is an "expert" on any of these issues is debatable I suppose. Whether he is well read in these areas is glaringly apparent.

You've challenged his experience in such matters, indicating his youth and implying that ought to disqualify his comments. Now you're flippantly suggesting Heretic is claiming expertise in areas when he has done no such thing. What knowledge he has, he has. You have the choice of dealing with it effectively, or not. Mockery doesn't cut it.

Yup, I gotta agree that mockery doesn't cut it. That was bad form and I apologize to heretic publicly for mockery.

If you can't handle him, withdraw and concede his greater breadth of knowledge on the topic. If you stay to debate him, arm yourself better.

I didn't mean to get into a debate. I just wanted to say that those of us who just listen to the experts without putting forth effort to understand are doing themselves a disservice. But when he mis-stated the scientific method and implied that this old man lied about attending school...

 

[Marginal]

I didn't mean to get into a debate. I just wanted to say that those of us who just listen to the experts without putting forth effort to understand are doing themselves a disservice.

That's great, but why is this thought supposed to be relevant?

Biblical archaeology? Pft. Can't beleive what you're told.

Science? Pft.

Psychological research? Pft.

Not really sure what's left that is relevant to the discussion if the response is always going to be "Some people beleive what they're told, and some don't." The whole point of the obversation is to open the way to useful knowledge synthesis. That cannot happen if the gateway question of Freshman Composition 101 is used to bat down all positions you happen to disagree with.

 

[rmcrobertson]

One of the things that religion and science SHOULD find agreement on happens to be a little humility--religion because the idea basically is that whichever God you prefer always knows more than you do, and science, because what you think rests on so many other people's work, and because the world may very well have a fundamental mysteriousness to it.

And those of us interested in humanism, science and empiricism should be willing to accept the fact that our claims rest on historical and cultural developments, the work of scientific communities.

We should also be a little more willing to explain the extent to which "science," rests on probabilities, not certainties--unlike religion, sure, because religions rest on assertions of certainties, but pretty much not absolute grounds for stating absolute certainties...

In other words, there's the cheezy line in "Inherit the Wind," about truth having meaning--as a direction.

Of course, along the line of that direction, we can pretty much get rid of the pseudo-science...like, for example, the "catastrophist," reading of the geological record that many Creationists use to try and give their religious beliefs a "scientific," basis.

Even that, though, rests on probability, MOST LIKELY (in fact, most likely to the point of scientific certainty), Creationism is just wrong. Bad theory. And, "Intelligent design," is in some ways worse (as bad, in fact, as some of the, "scientific theories," about, say race have been) an attempt to pass off animist superstition, fear of the dark, horror at social/historical change, and an childish attachment to Daddy as rational thought.

But--we do not know for sure, and in fact, from a scientific standpoint, we cannot know for sure. So a little humility might be in order all around.

 

[Flatlander]

:asian:

 

[Ray]

That's great, but why is this thought supposed to be relevant?

Biblical archaeology? Pft. Can't beleive what you're told.

Science? Pft.

Psychological research? Pft.

Not really sure what's left that is relevant to the discussion if the response is always going to be "Some people beleive what they're told, and some don't." The whole point of the obversation is to open the way to useful knowledge synthesis. That cannot happen if the gateway question of Freshman Composition 101 is used to bat down all positions you happen to disagree with.

Guess what? I didn't put forth a public opinion one way or the other on the subject. That means that I'm not using Freshman Composition 101 to beat anything down.

But if it is important to you to think that I said something other than I did, go right ahead. I declare you to have won the argument by virtue of your superior logic.

 

[tongsau]

As to the Expertise of the Heretic:
I am guessing that he was born into a Jewish family, based on some phrases he has said. Which let's me know his biases. So I recognize his frustration. I get the same from him.
He appears to be a well informed young? (I didn't check) man. However he is missing the point if the first statment is true. He is refuting a God he doesn't believe in.??? I am confused> Clarify your position. You truly believe that some being took a crap and created the universe?
A walking, talking prophecy and an agnostic to boot. Although we haven't established his existence. (Scientific method doens't allow that)
Is this the only martial art you practice? the art of quick tounge?
I can replace you with a simple shell script. Heartless but simple.

But just to keep you up to date in the field of Science "The big Bang, has been disproven." This after years of being held up as true. See, there is a million things that people are missing here. Mostly, Science "Theory" is not fact. Most of science is not fact. At least what we have been discussing.
Birds fly, that's a fact, Birds migrate fact. Birds evolved, that is not a fact, because they can't prove it. What they can prove is that birds change over time. Evolving requires change for the better. Mutating is change because of a breakdown.
The big bang was supposed to be a homogeous event. Truth has proved otherwise (million light-year gaps, can't be explained using the theory). Red shift defines distance, except when other factors cause it, we still can't map the universe accurately. And science will continue to desparately search to grasp theories as to not have to deal with a Creator. Do I need a peer reviewed book to cover this?
How about the science of flight: Have you ever seen a wing fall off a bird? "We are infants, bastards at best" - Shue

I bow out - not to establish victory or defeat but to respond to my heart telling me: "Jeremiah 12:13, Jeremiah 23:28"

 

[rmcrobertson]

The Enormous Space Kablooey was disproven? Going to be a real shock to the several astronomers I heard on the radio last Frida, discussing how exceited they were that the new experiment they were finnally going to get into space would allow us a better picture of the Big Bang than we'd ever had before.

Sorry, this is just nonsense. The fact--fact--of the anisotropic distribution of microwave radiation in the universe was first shown by the COBE satellites going on ten years ago. In point of fact, this unequal distribution is generally taken as one of the most persuasive proofs of the "Big Bang," that we have.

As for the stuff about evolution, you might want to look at Gould's many essays and books (I like the one on the Burgess Shale deposits) about the differences between Darwin and present-day accounts of evolution. Because, I'm afraid, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[heretic888]

Oy vey. A few points for clarification:

1) The only ad hominems in this discussion thus far, Ray, have come from your electronic computation device.

If one reads what I actually typed in context, I was not calling anyone a "liar" --- only, very simply, that we don't know if anything one says concerning "personal experience" is true or not (including the attending of college). Its a very straightforward shortcoming of the nature of anecdotal "evidence" --- which is why silly little things like citing one's sources (as opposed to citing unnamed "college books" whose authors are unknown) is kinda important in public discourse.

Especially when making claims that one is interpreting said texts "correctly" (direct quotations would be nice).

2) Contrary to the beliefs of some, what does or does not constitute "supernatural" phenomena is by no means universally agreed upon.

3) One's age has nothing to do with one's understanding of any academic field. Nor does a degree, for that matter.

4) One's raising of X number of children --- an anecdotal account --- has nothing to do with one's understanding of peer-reviewed, scientifically-verifiable theories concerning developmental psychology (which goes far beyond childhood).

5) I do find it somewhat interesting that someone advocating questioning everything presented before you is perpetually relying on unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" as support for his positions.

6) As to that tripartite definition regarding the scientific method (observe/experiment/theorize), yup, I can basically agree with that (although I personally prefer Thomas Kuhn's explanations for elaboration).

Funny thing, though, is that the little kiddies seem to be doing just that. Granted, its a really informal and dumbed-down version of the academic scientific disciplines, but the general process is in effect --- even among newborns. The running terminology tossed around is intuitive theories about very basic physical and psychological laws (such as, say, gravity).

So, yeah, it seems as if we come into the world prepped with at least some a priori knowledge. Tabula rasa eateth it.

7) Steve's right, of course. I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. What I do try to do is rest my beliefs on peer-reviewed studies and experiments. I'm not sure what all this has to do with "the experts", though.

8) Apology accepted.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Ok. So, lemme get this straight....

Apparently, my ethnicity (which is clearly "Jewish") can be determined by my philosophical positions. Apparently, I'm also an "agnostic", "trying to refute God", a "walking prophet", and believe the universe was created when "some being took a crap" (a rather interesting interpretation of kenosis --- which, by the way, was a concept developed by Christian intellectuals).

My actual ethnicity, if you must know, is roughly 1/2 English, 1/4 Scotch-Irish, 1/8 German, and 1/8 Arabic (Lebanese). No Jewish in me, sorry.

Also, I'm not trying to refute "God" (depending on your definition), am most assuredly not an agnotic nor an atheist, and my philosophical position leans toward Adlous Huxley's perennial philosophy. The formal religion I am most sympathetic to are certain strands of Mahayana Buddhism (specifically Zen/Ch'an and Vajrayana).

And, for the record, kenosis refers to the self-emptying of the Divine in the creation of the world --- it has nothing to do with the discharge of fecal matter. It is a statement of nondualism: that Spirit is prior to, but not other than, the manifest universe.

Now, regarding your rather silly conclusions about "science", I think Robert tackled that one concisely enough. But, it should be noted, I don't believe anyone here has passed off scientific theory as "fact". As Robert earlier pointed out, science deals in probabilities. Not absolutes.

And, it just so happens, that in all probability, your positions are full of dookey-doo. Laterz.

 

[Ray]

Oy vey. A few points for clarification:

1) The only ad hominems in this discussion thus far, Ray, have come from your electronic computation device.

If one reads what I actually typed in context, I was not calling anyone a "liar" --- only, very simply, that we don't know if anything one says concerning "personal experience" is true or not (including the attending of college).

Oh? My personal knowledge, the knowledge of my classmates and my teachers is not good enough for me to know that I am attending college? It may not be good enough for you because it is not typed up in a scientific journal, having had a fine experiement designed to test the theory and peers to review and re-conduct the experiment.

Whether I attend school or not is not part of the scientific quest to discover the laws of science. But since I stated it as a fact and you cast aspersions on the truthfulness of what I said then you have attacked me (fallacy of ad hominem); rather you should have asked for a means to verify it if you were truely concerned about the truth of it.

Its a very straightforward shortcoming of the nature of anecdotal "evidence" --- which is why silly little things like citing one's sources (as opposed to citing unnamed "college books" whose authors are unknown) is kinda important in public discourse.

Scientists/researchers design experiements to test hypothesis; others read their write-ups and repeat the experiments to validate the results. Thus we have several people who have had personal experiences and give their testimony as to the truthfulness/untruthfulness of the results. You discount anecdotal evidence when, in reality, all evidence is anecdotal. The anecdotal evidence of many people (as in scientific review and court cases) helps to avoid errors.

You can easily verify that the scientific method is a system of principles and procedures for the pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

There is a web site:http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~bpeters/jim/109one.htm
that claims to be have something to do with a geology class (science, right?).
In the presentation, the following is given: There is a basic assumption in science that a real world exists and we can perceive it with our senses. That a model of the scientist's world requires a separation of the real world from the brain's conceptual image of that real world. More verbiage on the web site says:
Assumption of the Existence of a Real World?

• • Clearly philosophically debated
    ---- expected in a Philosophy Class but not very productive in this class.
  • Rules out "Supernatural" Occurences
    • Note that this exclusion of supernatural events does not suggest that the right observations have been made or that we are capable of explaining the observations at any particular moment!
    • The "one-time" unrepeatable "observation" receives a very low credibility, if any, in the development of a scientific conceptual model.

Especially when making claims that one is interpreting said texts "correctly" (direct quotations would be nice).

I'll bet you can find many more statments like that on many web sites and in many science books.

2) Contrary to the beliefs of some, what does or does not constitute "supernatural" phenomena is by no means universally agreed upon.

I don't know about what other intelligent beings in the universe mean when they say "supernatural" but: 1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil 2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) (according to merriam-webster; a dictionary, not a scientific guide).

I think scientists and researchers have pretty well defined supernatural as merriam-webster does.

3) One's age has nothing to do with one's understanding of any academic field. Nor does a degree, for that matter.

Yup, I agreed with that in another post.

4) One's raising of X number of children --- an anecdotal account --- has nothing to do with one's understanding of peer-reviewed, scientifically-verifiable theories concerning developmental psychology (which goes far beyond childhood).

Scientists have not reviewed my theories of child rearing, true...but there are studies that agree with what I groped around in the dark to discover as I raised my children.

By the way, X is a variable, the number of my children is not--it is a quantity {a little humor or maybe no humor}.

5) I do find it somewhat interesting that someone advocating questioning everything presented before you is perpetually relying on unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" as support for his positions.

I advocate questioning those things which are important to the individual. I am fine with not arguing about the big bang versus creation; I am here and, that fact, I do not need to question. "How I got here" is not currently as important to me as "what am I going to do next."

I haven't given a position on the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the bible. Ergo, I am not relying on anecdotal evidence to support it.

And I don't rely on unverifiable anecdotal evidence to support my postions; I have lived my life and I have verified the facts of my life's experiences. But, if I put forth the position that "people should think" and you think that it is an anecdotal unverifiable opinion then, by all means, experiment on it.

And I read, and I reason. Sometimes I even perform a simple experiment (for my own recreation, nothing revolutionary) to help me form my beliefs.

6) As to that tripartite definition regarding the scientific method (observe/experiment/theorize), yup, I can basically agree with that (although I personally prefer Thomas Kuhn's explanations for elaboration).

Funny thing, though, is that the little kiddies seem to be doing just that. Granted, its a really informal and dumbed-down version of the academic scientific disciplines, but the general process is in effect --- even among newborns. The running terminology tossed around is intuitive theories about very basic physical and psychological laws (such as, say, gravity).

I disagree with the idea that gravity is an intuitive concept. It took quite a long time for humanity to discover it; and it was quite a leap.

As far as little kids doing that (observe/experiment/theorize), since we have so few instinctual behaviors, we have to learn and we have to learn quick or die. But the process of children learning isn't the same as a rigorous treatment by scientists.

So, yeah, it seems as if we come into the world prepped with at least some a priori knowledge. Tabula rasa eateth it.

A Priori means either deductive (as in deduced from facts) which we are not born with; or it means presumptive--and if infants are born with that kind of knowledge ("formed before-hand") then did they get in the womb? or from where?

7) Steve's right, of course. I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. What I do try to do is rest my beliefs on peer-reviewed studies and experiments. I'm not sure what all this has to do with "the experts", though.

I'm no expert either. But I differ from you in one respect: I analyze {some of} my beliefs based on studies which I then do my best to confirm for myself. In other words, I don't just accept what other people say without some consideration of it.

There's a world of difference between fertillizer and s**t. It's the same with knowledge and knowing.

8) Apology accepted.

Thanks.

 

[heretic888]

Hrmmmm.

As much as I'd enjoy defending myself against this latest volley of ad hominems and accusations on my personal character and intellectual understanding.... methinks I'll pass.

But, to sum up a few points:

1) The scientific method in no way denies the existence of that which cannot be tested. It merely posits that it cannot be tested --- after all, yah can't prove a negative. Nothing more, nothing less. Any book that tells you differently most likely reflects the ideological bias of its writer, moreso than an accurate portrayal of science.

2) You cannot "prove" anything using science. You can amass huge amounts of supporting evidence, but that still does not "prove" one's position. That just makes it a really likely probability, is all.

3) You can, however, disprove positions rather abundantly using the scientific method. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability (meaning, negative results are more important in science than positive results).

4) Peer-reviewed studies in which the data is publicly accessible to any interested party does not constitute an "anecdotal" account.

5) Contemporary research into infant cognition indicates they are born with what are called "intuitive theories" about the basic laws of physics and psychology. For example, the newborn is apparently instinctively knowledgeable at approximating which point a box being pushed off the edge of narrow incline will begin to teeter --- despite having no such prior experience by which to make such a decision by.

6) As to where and how this a priori knowledge comes from, I haven't the faintest clue. Perhaps its an evolutionary inheritance. Perhaps its a result of reincarnation. Perhaps its due to extraterrestrials tinkering with our brains. I don't know.

7) Research also tends to indicate that infants are born with innate "self-organizing" and "self-integrating" cognitive tendencies. This indicates some rudimentary knowledge of empiricism and the scientific method.

Laterz.

 

[Marginal]

Guess what? I didn't put forth a public opinion one way or the other on the subject. That means that I'm not using Freshman Composition 101 to beat anything down.

You're getting into awfully lengthy arguments all for the sake of an independent statement that seems to have no purpose in the discussion whatsoever in that case.

But if it is important to you to think that I said something other than I did, go right ahead. I declare you to have won the argument by virtue of your superior logic.

Seems reasonable to suppose that you've got some sort of issue with the people you elect to quote and then offer up your comment about "people needing to think". If nothing is to be derived from the context, and your statement has no apparent value as it is not to be applied to any statement made in the thread, (lest it indicate a bias one way or another) then... What's the point?

 

[Ray]

1) The scientific method in no way denies the existence of that which cannot be tested. It merely posits that it cannot be tested --- after all, yah can't prove a negative. Nothing more, nothing less. Any book that tells you differently most likely reflects the ideological bias of its writer, moreso than an accurate portrayal of science.

Yup, we agree. As I said, no supernatural explaination is allowed in the scientific method. The supernatural isn't denied nor affirmed by the scientific method. It's just not allowed and that is proper for the scientific method.

2) You cannot "prove" anything using science. You can amass huge amounts of supporting evidence, but that still does not "prove" one's position. That just makes it a really likely probability, is all.

Thanks. We agree.

The balance of what we seem to disagree on isn't important

 

[Ray]

You're getting into awfully lengthy arguments all for the sake of an independent statement that seems to have no purpose in the discussion whatsoever in that case.

Okay. More to the point, 67% of Americans say they believe the entire biblical account of Christmas. I'll bet most Americans also believe that there were three wise men and that their names were Balthasar, Gaspar and Melchior. Questioning is probably not important to most Americans.

 

[heretic888]

Yup, we agree. As I said, no supernatural explaination is allowed in the scientific method. The supernatural isn't denied nor affirmed by the scientific method. It's just not allowed and that is proper for the scientific method.

Well, a qualifier should perhaps be added here...

If a "supernatural explanation" was in any way able to be directly tested or falsified, then it most assuredly would be "allowed" by the scientific method. Now, perhaps sometime in the future, we will develop the means to directly test "supernatural" theories about life. Or, perhaps not.

At present, however, the closest thing we have are empirical and cross-cultural studies concerning the nature and effects of meditative/contemplative practices (i.e., Tibetan monks, Vedanta gurus, Christian contemplative mystics, Sufi mystics, and so on). And, even then, its arguable as to whether any of this is "supernatural" (contemplatives and mystics typically have different attitudes about the sacred than do normal believers) or not.

Anyways, the point being, if'n it can't be tested then science isn't concerned with it. Now, it may be true or it may not be true. But, without any ways of testing whether its true or not, we just have no way of knowing.

Thanks. We agree.

Guess so. Laterz.