Scientific thinking requires Precision

[cjrose]

I have been thinking about this a lot. Doing my best to open my mind and view the perspective of the scientist vs. a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.

So, like the atheists read the Bible ( still not sure why ) I took it upon myself to attempt their perspective. Now don't all jump on me. Not all atheists are scientists, however, the thought process seems to be the same.

For example: An excerpt from 2003 Foundation for Critical Thinking. Please bear with me on this since, I've had to make a "temporary shift" in my perception so that I can really try to understand how a human being cannot believe in God. Not just any god or gods, or mythology goddesses, but THE God. The Creator of the Universe.

Before I recite the excerpt. Think about this. How small the world must look to the astronauts in space. The further they get from it, the smaller it becomes. As they enter space, there is a universe that is beyond what we can see. And our Creator can look down upon the earth and know each one of us better than we know ourselves.

Now you who need proof and evidence, are more "thinkers" of "The Logic of Rationality", "The Logic of Egocentrism"

The Logic of Egocentrism: a self contained lofic. To itself, it appears logicial. But focusing on its logic we can figure out how it functions. We can figure out it purpose, assumptions, point of view, etc. But let's get back to

Scientific Thinking: To be precise in speaking of casual relationships, scientists must distinguish different forms of relationships.

One set of distinctions essential to scientific thinking are 1)sufficient causes, 2) necessary causes, 3) necessary and sufficient cause and 4) contributory causes.

One illustration:

1) If smoking were a sufficient cause of lung cancer, everyone who smoked would get lung cancer.

2) If smoking were a necessary cause of lung cancer, only smokers would get lung cancer; non smokers would never get it

3) If smoking were both a suffcient and necessary cause, everyone who smoked, and only those who smoked would get lung cancer.

4) If smoking were a contributing cause of lung cancer, other things held constant, smokers would have a higher rate of lung cancer than non smokers, which of course they do.

Universal Intellectual Standards to Sound Scientific Thinking;

Clarity; Could you elaborate further on that point? Could you express that point in another way? Could you give me an illustration? Clarity is a gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying?

Accuracy; Is that really true? How could we check that? How could we find out if that is true? A statement can be clear but not accurate as in "most creatures with a spine of over 300 pounds in weight."

Precision; Could you give me more details? Could you be more specific? A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "The solution in the beaker is hot." (We don't know how hot it is.)

Relevance; How is that connected to the question? How does that bear on the issue?

Intellectual Standards in Scientific Thinking;

Clarity; Could you elaborate further?

Accuracy; How could we check on that data or test that theory?

Precision; Could you be more specific?

Relevance; Hos does the data bear on the question?

Depth; What factors make this a difficult scientific problem?

BREADTH: (my fav) Do we need to look at this from another perspective? Do we need to consider another point of view? Do we need to look at his in other ways?

Logic; Are all the data consistent with each other?

Significance; Is this the central idea to focus on?

Fairness; Do I have a vested interest in this issue which keeps me looking at it objectively?

Science, appears to me, one the biggest obstacles in coming to know that our Creator, our Father sent His Son Jesus, to suffer and die on the cross for our sins. There are facts of His walking the earth, His performing miracles, His resurrection after three days of being buried in a tomb. These are facts, not scientific theory. Eyewitness accounts.

Compared to Science, "I am the Truth, The Way, and the Light" "Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened" He stands outside knocking.

Do Scientists need to look at another point of view, yes!! Another perspective? Yes!! Do scientists have too much invested in their theory's and need for proof and evidence in this issue, it and not Faith is what blinds them to the truth? Me thinks so. And here is why:

2003 Foundation for Critical Thinking:

Unscientific and pseudo-scientific thinking come from the unfortunate fact that humans do not naturally think scientifically, though they often think they do. Further more, we become explicity aware of our unscientific thinking only if trained to do so. We do not naturally recognize our assumptions, the unscientific way we use information, the way we interpret data, the source of our concepts and ideas, the implications of our unscientific thought.

We do not naturally recognize our unscientific perspective. End:

What does this mean to you?

I'll give you my perspective. I was never trained to think scientifically because my spirit has been calling all my life. Jesus was knocking at my door and I finally, after egocentric theory bombed and I learned that my life is not my own but is in full control of the the Lord. After expecting different results by doing the same actions, I was on treadmill going nowhere. It isn't until we change internally, become awakened to the possibility that (forgetting religion) but focus on the facts of Jesus Christ will we change from mere mortal to a Living Spirit among many like minded, who have gone that extra mile, and allowed God's Spirit to be the source of our wisdom, insight and knowledge. Faith is where it begins, as it is a most precious gift.

Peace

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

I'll give you my perspective. I was never trained to think scientifically because my spirit has been calling all my life. Jesus was knocking at my door and I finally, after egocentric theory bombed and I learned that my life is not my own but is in full control of the the Lord. After expecting different results by doing the same actions, I was on treadmill going nowhere. It isn't until we change internally, become awakened to the possibility that (forgetting religion) but focus on the facts of Jesus Christ will we change from mere mortal to a Living Spirit among many like minded, who have gone that extra mile, and allowed God's Spirit to be the source of our wisdom, insight and knowledge. Faith is where it begins, as it is a most precious gift.

Peace

Sounds like Gnosticism, be careful

Joe

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

Great thread CJ! I applaud your efforts! More believers and atheists alike should try to attempt and understand each others' perspectives.

I haven't come to criticize anything you've said--because I agree with all of it--just to talk with you. I like philosophizing about science because to be honest scientists rarely do that sort of thing. They get caught up in research, the little picture, and they rarely step back to see the big one. Well, in looking at the big picture I've come up with a conclusions. I personally define science as the pursuit of truth through measurable observation. If something is not measurable, science does usually not care about it, or it is just completely baffled by it. That is why things like "a personal relationship with Jesus" is not given that much scientific merit. That kind of thing can't be isolated or measured. Also, in order to measure the different variable it is observing, science often has to isolate them. For instance, if we are testing the impact of a certain hormone in the human body we set up a control group with a normal amount of the hormone, and then we set up a number of experimental groups with different amounts of the hormone and we observe the results. However, if we cannot isolate the thing we are studying, in this case the hormone, then science can't really say too much about this. Things like the spirit or soul cannot be measured and they definitely cannot be isolated, so science can't really tell us much about them. Also, because science puts a lot of emphasis on objectivity, first-hand experiences are not given any merit. In order for something to be considered a scientific experiment, it must involve measurable variables and it must be able to be repeated by other experimenters.

I think all this leads to a problem. It is not a problem with science itself, but rather with its interpretation. Science-types tend to think, if something can't be measured, isolated, or repeated, it doesn't exist. They think, just because a lot of religious and spiritual things can't be experimentally observed, they simply cannot be. I see how people can believe things like this, but I disagree. And that is why I'm an agnostic (I'm only an atheist when I feel grumpy). Science does not disprove God or the spirit, it simply can't prove or disprove them.

Well articulated, RH, thank you. This is something I've thought about for so long, but have never heard a "scientists" admit to it. The interpretation has been such that science is the end-all of all knowledge. I'm not sure when this started, but it's a very closed-minded philosophy and can really hamper a scientists' research, IMO.

Great thread,

Joe

[Guest stevej]

cj, A very well thought out and articulated thread. Even someone as unscientific as i am can understand it. Thanks for the insight!

[Joshua-777]

Great thread CJ! I applaud your efforts! More believers and atheists alike should try to attempt and understand each others' perspectives.

I agree with all that you've said and I appreciate that you said it. I like philosophizing about science because to be honest scientists rarely do that sort of thing. They get caught up in research, the little picture, and they rarely step back to see the big one. Well I've always found the big picture interesting and, in looking at it, I've had a few observations.

I personally define science as the pursuit of truth through measurable observation. If something is not measurable, science does usually not care about it, or it is just completely baffled by it. That's why things like souls and spirits are not given that much scientific merit. They can't be quantitatively measured. And, in order to measure the different variable it is observing, science has to isolate them. For instance, if we're testing the impact of a certain hormone in the human body we set up a control group with a normal amount of the hormone, and then we set up a number of experimental groups with different amounts of the hormone and we observe the results. However, if we can't isolate and manipulate the thing we're studying like we can a hormone, then science can't really say too much about it. Things like the spirit or soul can't be measured and they definitely can't be isolated, so science can't tell us anything about them. Also, because science puts a lot of emphasis on objectivity, first-hand experiences like "a personal relationship with Christ" and deep-seated emotional certainties are not given merit. In order for a scientific experiment to be valid, it must involve measurable variables and it must be repeatable by other experimenters.

All this leads to a problem. It is not a problem with science itself, but rather a problem with those that interpret it. Science-types tend to think, if something can't be measured, isolated, or repeated, it doesn't exist at all. They think, just because a lot of religious and spiritual things can't be experimentally observed, they simply cannot be.

I see how people can believe things like this, but I disagree. I don't claim to know things like spirits and even spirit worlds don't exist. Until we disprove them they might exist. And science can't disprove them, because they are not quantitatively measurable. And that is why I'm an agnostic. (I'm only an atheist when I feel grumpy).

lol, I didn't know you where agnostic, lol,

[secondeve]

Great thread CJ! I applaud your efforts! More believers and atheists alike should try to attempt and understand each others' perspectives.

I agree with all that you've said and I appreciate that you said it. I like philosophizing about science because to be honest scientists rarely do that sort of thing. They get caught up in research, the little picture, and they rarely step back to see the big one. Well I've always found the big picture interesting and, in looking at it, I've had a few observations.

I personally define science as the pursuit of truth through measurable observation. If something is not measurable, science does usually not care about it, or it is just completely baffled by it. That's why things like souls and spirits are not given that much scientific merit. They can't be quantitatively measured. And, in order to measure the different variable it is observing, science has to isolate them. For instance, scientists testing the impact of a certain hormone in the human body might we set up a control group with a normal amount of the hormone and then setup a number of experimental groups with different amounts of the hormone. Then they use to the results to make conclusions about the effect of the hormone. But if we can't isolate and manipulate the thing we're studying like we can with the hormone, then science can't really say too much about it. Things like the spirit or soul can't be measured and they definitely can't be isolated, so science can't tell us anything about them. Also, because science puts a lot of emphasis on objectivity, first-hand experiences like "a personal relationship with Christ" and deep-seated emotional certainties are not given merit. In order for a scientific experiment to be valid, it must be repeated and confirmed by other scientists.

All this leads to a common problem. It is not a problem with science itself, but rather a problem with those that interpret it. Science-types tend to think, if something can't be measured, isolated, or repeated, it doesn't exist at all. They think, just because a lot of religious and spiritual things can't be experimentally observed, they simply cannot be.

I see how people can believe things like this, but I disagree. I don't claim to know things like spirits and even spirit worlds don't exist. Until we disprove them their existence is a possibility. And science can't disprove them, because they are not quantitatively measurable. And that is why I'm an agnostic. (I'm only an atheist when I feel grumpy).

I agree entirely! Very well said - and I'd say that also describes my position accurately, too.

[cjrose]

Great thread CJ! I applaud your efforts! More believers and atheists alike should try to attempt and understand each others' perspectives.

I agree with all that you've said and I appreciate that you said it. I like philosophizing about science because to be honest scientists rarely do that sort of thing. They get caught up in research, the little picture, and they rarely step back to see the big one. Well I've always found the big picture interesting and, in looking at it, I've had a few observations.

I personally define science as the pursuit of truth through measurable observation. If something is not measurable, science does usually not care about it, or it is just completely baffled by it. That's why things like souls and spirits are not given that much scientific merit. They can't be quantitatively measured. And, in order to measure the different variable it is observing, science has to isolate them. For instance, scientists testing the impact of a certain hormone in the human body might we set up a control group with a normal amount of the hormone and then setup a number of experimental groups with different amounts of the hormone. Then they use to the results to make conclusions about the effect of the hormone. But if we can't isolate and manipulate the thing we're studying like we can with the hormone, then science can't really say too much about it. Things like the spirit or soul can't be measured and they definitely can't be isolated, so science can't tell us anything about them. Also, because science puts a lot of emphasis on objectivity, first-hand experiences like "a personal relationship with Christ" and deep-seated emotional certainties are not given merit. In order for a scientific experiment to be valid, it must be repeated and confirmed by other scientists.

All this leads to a common problem. It is not a problem with science itself, but rather a problem with those that interpret it. Science-types tend to think, if something can't be measured, isolated, or repeated, it doesn't exist at all. They think, just because a lot of religious and spiritual things can't be experimentally observed, they simply cannot be.

I see how people can believe things like this, but I disagree. I don't claim to know things like spirits and even spirit worlds don't exist. Until we disprove them their existence is a possibility. And science can't disprove them, because they are not quantitatively measurable. And that is why I'm an agnostic. (I'm only an atheist when I feel grumpy).

Thanks runners since Worthy has a forum that allows "you people" j/k here, I can at least attempt to figure out why you (in a general sense) think as you do. Your response is really great and I'm hoping others will benefit as well.

[cjrose]

I'll give you my perspective. I was never trained to think scientifically because my spirit has been calling all my life. Jesus was knocking at my door and I finally, after egocentric theory bombed and I learned that my life is not my own but is in full control of the the Lord. After expecting different results by doing the same actions, I was on treadmill going nowhere. It isn't until we change internally, become awakened to the possibility that (forgetting religion) but focus on the facts of Jesus Christ will we change from mere mortal to a Living Spirit among many like minded, who have gone that extra mile, and allowed God's Spirit to be the source of our wisdom, insight and knowledge. Faith is where it begins, as it is a most precious gift.

Peace

Sounds like Gnosticism, be careful

Joe

I'm not so sure that is such a kind thing to reply with as Paul argued with the Gnostics and their beliefs. Let me add to my response above and that is, I did not know that God was calling to me all my life until I opened my ears and listened to give that knock a peak until I opened the door fully. One can have no knowledge of the Word until the Spirit becomes alive with His. I believe in the Word of God that Jesus became flesh, the Son of Man, humbled, yet sinless. And yes, the Spirit becomes alive when we accept Him and surrender. I am not divided among my family here at Worthy. Am I? Not.

Could please, explain your statement. We must have some kind of miscommunication here and I'd like to clear it up.

Gnostics believed that the flesh is always evil, they taught that a sinless Christ could not have become truly human. Gnostics were divided over the incarnation. The Docetic Gnostics claimed that Christ's human body was only an illusion while the Cerinthian Gnostics taught that God's divine spirit filled the human, Jesus at baptism but fled before His death.

Like all other tenets of Gnostic belief, Scripture refutes both these positions. Col. 1:15-18, Heb. 2:14, 1 John 4:2-6.

So you are basically accusing me of sounding like a Gnostic???

[cjrose]

cj, A very well thought out and articulated thread. Even someone as unscientific as i am can understand it. Thanks for the insight!

steve, you are so humble I am glad to know you have benefited but the glory goes to God

[cjrose]

Great thread CJ! I applaud your efforts! More believers and atheists alike should try to attempt and understand each others' perspectives.

I agree with all that you've said and I appreciate that you said it. I like philosophizing about science because to be honest scientists rarely do that sort of thing. They get caught up in research, the little picture, and they rarely step back to see the big one. Well I've always found the big picture interesting and, in looking at it, I've had a few observations.

I personally define science as the pursuit of truth through measurable observation. If something is not measurable, science does usually not care about it, or it is just completely baffled by it. That's why things like souls and spirits are not given that much scientific merit. They can't be quantitatively measured. And, in order to measure the different variable it is observing, science has to isolate them. For instance, scientists testing the impact of a certain hormone in the human body might we set up a control group with a normal amount of the hormone and then setup a number of experimental groups with different amounts of the hormone. Then they use to the results to make conclusions about the effect of the hormone. But if we can't isolate and manipulate the thing we're studying like we can with the hormone, then science can't really say too much about it. Things like the spirit or soul can't be measured and they definitely can't be isolated, so science can't tell us anything about them. Also, because science puts a lot of emphasis on objectivity, first-hand experiences like "a personal relationship with Christ" and deep-seated emotional certainties are not given merit. In order for a scientific experiment to be valid, it must be repeated and confirmed by other scientists.

All this leads to a common problem. It is not a problem with science itself, but rather a problem with those that interpret it. Science-types tend to think, if something can't be measured, isolated, or repeated, it doesn't exist at all. They think, just because a lot of religious and spiritual things can't be experimentally observed, they simply cannot be.

I see how people can believe things like this, but I disagree. I don't claim to know things like spirits and even spirit worlds don't exist. Until we disprove them their existence is a possibility. And science can't disprove them, because they are not quantitatively measurable. And that is why I'm an agnostic. (I'm only an atheist when I feel grumpy).

I agree entirely! Very well said - and I'd say that also describes my position accurately, too.

You both rock!!