History0 min ago
A subject for tomorrow's discussion?
59 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
How do you define incontrovertable?
Every other day scientists are saying that such and such a food or drink is a miracle food and good for your health, only for another group of scientists to say the opposite.
You ask for written accounts, and then dismiss them because they're not eyewitness accounts, but don't seek to discredit Herodotus for the same anamoly.
Why sit on the fence?
No amount of evidence will persuade the atheists, nor any other creed save for that moment when there's the rapture, too late for all of us then (me anyway).
Religion is philosophy, it's more than just Jesus said etc, it's the substance behind it (that's why the fairy and spaghetti monster analogies are so lame) it's the "truth" of that message and the faith in it's messenger that constitutes your belief.
It's the expression of the same that causes the trouble.
Every other day scientists are saying that such and such a food or drink is a miracle food and good for your health, only for another group of scientists to say the opposite.
You ask for written accounts, and then dismiss them because they're not eyewitness accounts, but don't seek to discredit Herodotus for the same anamoly.
Why sit on the fence?
No amount of evidence will persuade the atheists, nor any other creed save for that moment when there's the rapture, too late for all of us then (me anyway).
Religion is philosophy, it's more than just Jesus said etc, it's the substance behind it (that's why the fairy and spaghetti monster analogies are so lame) it's the "truth" of that message and the faith in it's messenger that constitutes your belief.
It's the expression of the same that causes the trouble.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Everton I'm sure you don't need me to define incontrovertible for you - and where have I asked for written accounts? And who's sitting on the fence? You say that no amount of evidence will persuade the atheists, but there is no credible evidence. The writings of ancient historians, whether accurate or not, do not dictate the way in which people live their lives so why should we seek to discredit them?
Religion is, amongst other things, philosophy, but philosophy isn't necessarily truth. Believe what you like, but to deem something 'truth', then the evidence must be irrefutable.
Jake is absolutely right. Scientists must be prepared to accept that they may be wrong, but people of religion will never do that despite the fact that with so many religions in the world, if there's any truth in religion at all, then the majority of them MUST be wrong. They can't possibly all be right, can they?
Religion is, amongst other things, philosophy, but philosophy isn't necessarily truth. Believe what you like, but to deem something 'truth', then the evidence must be irrefutable.
Jake is absolutely right. Scientists must be prepared to accept that they may be wrong, but people of religion will never do that despite the fact that with so many religions in the world, if there's any truth in religion at all, then the majority of them MUST be wrong. They can't possibly all be right, can they?
I think that like scientists many people of religion do realise that they might be wrong, but they hope that they aren�t. The difference is, scientists are more certain that they can be proved wrong in this world when evidence is found to the contrary, whereas religionists generally can�t, since similar contrary 'irrefutable' evidence is not put forward.
If you argue that �irrefutable� evidence is given in science, then equally new �irrefutable� evidence by another scientist can prove it wrong. You don�t have similar circumstances with religion (yet), whether you like it or not.
If you argue that �irrefutable� evidence is given in science, then equally new �irrefutable� evidence by another scientist can prove it wrong. You don�t have similar circumstances with religion (yet), whether you like it or not.
I answered this at 0400 on my way to work and it just disappeared into the ether, bl00dy AB playing up again!!
Is it incontravertible that the MMR jab is safe?
A reputable scientist said not, is he wrong, are the people who believe him all mad?
The defence for any scientist who is found to be wrong is a simple one, we need more evidence/ more funding to prove it. Historically there is a precedent for that stand (the transmission of Cholera via water) but to say a scientist who produces one set of facts about food is wrong because another scientist says to the contrary is curious because they're both scientists, both equally qualified who do you trust?
The one that fits?
The Bible is a written account which you discredit (although I lean more towards for the New Testament for values) "The Histories" is also a written account and the basis of our knowledge of the ancient world, how can you trust one without the other?
The basis of all religion (to my mind) is to build consensus, happiness and peace to bring people together and enjoy the gift of life.
All religions are right because God's challenge for us all is to love and accept all those who are different to us who don't want to hurt us.
I would'nt dream of telling future Mrs.Ev that she's wrong to follow Buddhism, because it's right for her, I'm not a fascist I don't seek to impose my views or beliefs on anyone and I'm quite happy to go veggie once every 10 days to please her. Where's the harm?
We're all on the Earth for a short time, we have to understand it to our own satisfaction learn to enjoy and love creation in a harmless manner.
Which ever way you achieve this is the right way, ergo the right answer.
My earlier answer was better and more succinct. :-(
Is it incontravertible that the MMR jab is safe?
A reputable scientist said not, is he wrong, are the people who believe him all mad?
The defence for any scientist who is found to be wrong is a simple one, we need more evidence/ more funding to prove it. Historically there is a precedent for that stand (the transmission of Cholera via water) but to say a scientist who produces one set of facts about food is wrong because another scientist says to the contrary is curious because they're both scientists, both equally qualified who do you trust?
The one that fits?
The Bible is a written account which you discredit (although I lean more towards for the New Testament for values) "The Histories" is also a written account and the basis of our knowledge of the ancient world, how can you trust one without the other?
The basis of all religion (to my mind) is to build consensus, happiness and peace to bring people together and enjoy the gift of life.
All religions are right because God's challenge for us all is to love and accept all those who are different to us who don't want to hurt us.
I would'nt dream of telling future Mrs.Ev that she's wrong to follow Buddhism, because it's right for her, I'm not a fascist I don't seek to impose my views or beliefs on anyone and I'm quite happy to go veggie once every 10 days to please her. Where's the harm?
We're all on the Earth for a short time, we have to understand it to our own satisfaction learn to enjoy and love creation in a harmless manner.
Which ever way you achieve this is the right way, ergo the right answer.
My earlier answer was better and more succinct. :-(
Octavius I'm not arguing that irrefutable evidence is given in science. I believe we're talking about the definition of 'truth', but although Everton and I have been down this road before, it seems the debate often strays from the path because he doesn't appear to recognise that indisputable truth demands proof.
Everton Are we talking about the definition of 'truth'? If so your questions are irrelevant. Nevertheless, if two scientists studying the same subject come to different conclusions, then clearly neither conclusion can be deemed to be the truth, since neither is proven beyond doubt. As for the bible and Herodotus, yes, they do deal with history (well, if we dismiss all the supernatural notions, I believe the bible deals with history), but the bible differs from Herodotus inasmuch as in our society the bible is the manual by which many people live their lives, and it has a great effect on many people's lives. We can choose to believe its contents concerning God, miracles, etc, if we want to, but since we have no proof that it is factual we cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is the truth.
Everton Are we talking about the definition of 'truth'? If so your questions are irrelevant. Nevertheless, if two scientists studying the same subject come to different conclusions, then clearly neither conclusion can be deemed to be the truth, since neither is proven beyond doubt. As for the bible and Herodotus, yes, they do deal with history (well, if we dismiss all the supernatural notions, I believe the bible deals with history), but the bible differs from Herodotus inasmuch as in our society the bible is the manual by which many people live their lives, and it has a great effect on many people's lives. We can choose to believe its contents concerning God, miracles, etc, if we want to, but since we have no proof that it is factual we cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is the truth.
God performs miracles in "The Histories".
The MMR jab is safe, true or false?
Incontravertable truth is very hard to find in science, if it were the premiss of all scientific proceedures, then alot of practices would not be allowed.
Let's delve further into truth, I used to have a friend who if you asked him would tell you and anyone who cared to listen that he loved the woman who he went on to marry and who was the mother of his child, but I knew he was knocking a bird off in Longview (and several others), if you asked him he'd tell you the truth is that she loved him (and she'd agree) but I knew (we all knew) that she was shagging one of his best mates (2, at least, separate spells), she made a pass at me when he was drunk and he thought that he was her first, when I knew someone elses name was on the door and that he was the third.
The truth to them is that they love each other (but do they?) how do you know, how does anyone know?
If your husband has a one night stand, does he not love you?
How do you know your husband loves you?
The truth is always where you find it and how YOU define it.
That is the expression, experience and the tangible nature of truth.
The MMR jab is safe, true or false?
Incontravertable truth is very hard to find in science, if it were the premiss of all scientific proceedures, then alot of practices would not be allowed.
Let's delve further into truth, I used to have a friend who if you asked him would tell you and anyone who cared to listen that he loved the woman who he went on to marry and who was the mother of his child, but I knew he was knocking a bird off in Longview (and several others), if you asked him he'd tell you the truth is that she loved him (and she'd agree) but I knew (we all knew) that she was shagging one of his best mates (2, at least, separate spells), she made a pass at me when he was drunk and he thought that he was her first, when I knew someone elses name was on the door and that he was the third.
The truth to them is that they love each other (but do they?) how do you know, how does anyone know?
If your husband has a one night stand, does he not love you?
How do you know your husband loves you?
The truth is always where you find it and how YOU define it.
That is the expression, experience and the tangible nature of truth.
There is quite simply no such animal as truth, it's a fiction .
Well maybe it exists in mathematics but I'm not even sure about that
Show me a scientist who claims it and I'll show you a scientist who does not understand science properly, and needs to read up on Karl Popper.
There is always a small possibility of error, in observation but these can become so improbable that we often talk of scientific fact as a shorthand.
It's actually incredibly rare in science for such "facts" to contradict each other. I'm having real difficulty thinking of an example.
What's more common is that a previously accepted notion is etended in some way such as Einstein's relativity ammending Newtonian ideas of gravity - Netwon wasn't "wrong" just incomplete.
The other common thing is for newspaper hacks to report some piece of Science as new knowledge before it's been validated or a concensus reached. The actual scientists doing the work may not be that solid on it but it's reported as Gospel only to be later shown to be wrong.
It is worth remembering her question to Jeremy Vine though - If your children were ill would you take them to a doctor or a priest?
Look deep inside yourself do you really believe that the reason you'd go to a doctor is due to not testing God?
Or do you know in your heart that the real reason is that Doctors can cure people and priests cannot
Well maybe it exists in mathematics but I'm not even sure about that
Show me a scientist who claims it and I'll show you a scientist who does not understand science properly, and needs to read up on Karl Popper.
There is always a small possibility of error, in observation but these can become so improbable that we often talk of scientific fact as a shorthand.
It's actually incredibly rare in science for such "facts" to contradict each other. I'm having real difficulty thinking of an example.
What's more common is that a previously accepted notion is etended in some way such as Einstein's relativity ammending Newtonian ideas of gravity - Netwon wasn't "wrong" just incomplete.
The other common thing is for newspaper hacks to report some piece of Science as new knowledge before it's been validated or a concensus reached. The actual scientists doing the work may not be that solid on it but it's reported as Gospel only to be later shown to be wrong.
It is worth remembering her question to Jeremy Vine though - If your children were ill would you take them to a doctor or a priest?
Look deep inside yourself do you really believe that the reason you'd go to a doctor is due to not testing God?
Or do you know in your heart that the real reason is that Doctors can cure people and priests cannot
Everton I don't deny that incontrovertable truth is hard to find in science. The rest of what you're saying is just what sometimes happens to humankind and can't possibly be used as a yardstick. My point is that belief is not necessarily truth, and therefore truth is not always where you find it, or how you define it. You may believe as you will, but you cannot under any circumstances claim that you base your belief on truth, simply because there is no proof for that in which you believe.
Jake I saw that interview. Jeremy Vine was very committed until that question was asked. I almost expected him to say he would trust in God, but he didn't. Interesting. If a chlld of yours was sick, Everton, what would you do? Seek medical advice, or trust in God?.
I can't agree that there's no such animal as truth though. To get down to basics, if the question 'The universe exists - true or false?' were posed, then unless we go into some weird philosophical world of our own creation, we would have to say 'true' because we observe it - (even though some of that which we observe is, in reality, long gone, it would have been part of the universe at some time).
Jake I saw that interview. Jeremy Vine was very committed until that question was asked. I almost expected him to say he would trust in God, but he didn't. Interesting. If a chlld of yours was sick, Everton, what would you do? Seek medical advice, or trust in God?.
I can't agree that there's no such animal as truth though. To get down to basics, if the question 'The universe exists - true or false?' were posed, then unless we go into some weird philosophical world of our own creation, we would have to say 'true' because we observe it - (even though some of that which we observe is, in reality, long gone, it would have been part of the universe at some time).
Your focussing on a small part of the answer, JTP hit the nail squarely on the head in his first few lines "there is no such animal as truth".
My truth is different to my future wife's, Waldo's truth is different again, who's right? If there's only 1 truth which do you pick? Or do you abstain?
Personally I believe the challenge in life is to build consensus, not to wag my finger and say you're all wrong. I'm happy to accept the validity of the notion of your alien visitors, even if you're not! ;-)
I looked for the truth and found it, future Mrs.Ev looked for the truth and found it, Waldo looked for the truth and found it and so on... If you can get Waldo to concede that evolution is not the truth then you should sell second hand cars (you'd make a fortune)
If I had a sick child of course I'd take them to the doctor, I've seen alot more doctors than you over the years Naomi (13 operations before the age of 9) and several more after that.
The flaw in that hypothesis is tha it asumes the doctor can help, if your child was sick and there was nothing the doctors could do, what would you do?
Would you pray?
Would you go to Lourdes, or elsewhere?
Or would you just give up?
My truth is different to my future wife's, Waldo's truth is different again, who's right? If there's only 1 truth which do you pick? Or do you abstain?
Personally I believe the challenge in life is to build consensus, not to wag my finger and say you're all wrong. I'm happy to accept the validity of the notion of your alien visitors, even if you're not! ;-)
I looked for the truth and found it, future Mrs.Ev looked for the truth and found it, Waldo looked for the truth and found it and so on... If you can get Waldo to concede that evolution is not the truth then you should sell second hand cars (you'd make a fortune)
If I had a sick child of course I'd take them to the doctor, I've seen alot more doctors than you over the years Naomi (13 operations before the age of 9) and several more after that.
The flaw in that hypothesis is tha it asumes the doctor can help, if your child was sick and there was nothing the doctors could do, what would you do?
Would you pray?
Would you go to Lourdes, or elsewhere?
Or would you just give up?
Everton You get angry because you're still missing the basic point - and this is only a discussion, so no need for anger. I'm not arguing the existence of otherwise of your God, I'm only talking about the definition of truth. Your belief may be different to that of your future wife, or to Waldo's, but since there is discrepancy between each of your 'beliefs', then none of them can be deemed 'absolute truth'. Belief is not necessarily 'truth'. If it were, we'd have to say that absolutely everything that anyone in the world believes in is true.
No one denies you the right to believe as you will, but since you can offer no 'proof' that what you believe is true, you can't expect everyone else to agree with you. You only 'think' it's true. It's the same with my alien theory. Even though I believe it's highly likely, I can't tell anyone that this is what really happened in the past because I don't know.
If my child were sick, and there was nothing doctors could do, I wouldn't call upon your God for help because I don't believe he is an almighty God.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be too sure about your superior experience of doctors if I were you.
No one denies you the right to believe as you will, but since you can offer no 'proof' that what you believe is true, you can't expect everyone else to agree with you. You only 'think' it's true. It's the same with my alien theory. Even though I believe it's highly likely, I can't tell anyone that this is what really happened in the past because I don't know.
If my child were sick, and there was nothing doctors could do, I wouldn't call upon your God for help because I don't believe he is an almighty God.
Incidentally, I wouldn't be too sure about your superior experience of doctors if I were you.
Honestly I'm not in the least bit angry.
For any truth to be accepted by others there has to be agreement on the evidence, but when one offers evidence based on experience others choose not to accept it. So what do you do? To my mind you just say you have it your way I'll have it mine, as long as you're not p1ssing on my back and telling me it's raining then I don't really care.
My proof is in the Bible and personal experience, my future wife's proof is somewhat different I don't expect her or anyone else to agree with me (I made that plain earlier)iave never layed claim to posses the absolute truth or any kind of superior morality for that matter.
I never asked would you call on my God for help (there are plenty of God's you can call on) but (God forbid) if K90's child was ill he'd pray to God for help, if her mother got sick she'd pray for deliverance, but not from my God. I'd happily join them in the act. If you use Ockham's razor on rligion then right bang smack in the middle of the Venn Diagram is God. The force that could, should and hopefully one day will unite all humanity in all his glories.
For any truth to be accepted by others there has to be agreement on the evidence, but when one offers evidence based on experience others choose not to accept it. So what do you do? To my mind you just say you have it your way I'll have it mine, as long as you're not p1ssing on my back and telling me it's raining then I don't really care.
My proof is in the Bible and personal experience, my future wife's proof is somewhat different I don't expect her or anyone else to agree with me (I made that plain earlier)iave never layed claim to posses the absolute truth or any kind of superior morality for that matter.
I never asked would you call on my God for help (there are plenty of God's you can call on) but (God forbid) if K90's child was ill he'd pray to God for help, if her mother got sick she'd pray for deliverance, but not from my God. I'd happily join them in the act. If you use Ockham's razor on rligion then right bang smack in the middle of the Venn Diagram is God. The force that could, should and hopefully one day will unite all humanity in all his glories.
I don't lay claim to superior experiece of doctors either, I may lay claim to more numerous experiences than most who contribute here.
The point I was trying to make in reference to the analogy is that I as a man with belief don't seek to deny myself help based on dogma so nor would I deny it to my child (I actually answered a question on this vein the other week) and to repeat that thread nor do I think should anyone else. Love's triumph is to put the needs of others before your own. To do nothing and ask God to do something is not religion, it's superstition.
I do find it a curious piece of reasoning that science and religion are mutually exclusive and you can't follow one without the other, alot of scientists have faith, alot creationists use science.
I'm using science now...
The point I was trying to make in reference to the analogy is that I as a man with belief don't seek to deny myself help based on dogma so nor would I deny it to my child (I actually answered a question on this vein the other week) and to repeat that thread nor do I think should anyone else. Love's triumph is to put the needs of others before your own. To do nothing and ask God to do something is not religion, it's superstition.
I do find it a curious piece of reasoning that science and religion are mutually exclusive and you can't follow one without the other, alot of scientists have faith, alot creationists use science.
I'm using science now...
Everton For any truth to be accepted by others there has to be agreement on the evidence, but when one offers evidence based on experience others choose not to accept it. So what do you do? Most of us, I would say, consider the question, look at any evidence that may be available, and decide in our own minds which is the most likely explanation (like me and aliens, or Waldo and evolution, or you and your God). However, until concrete evidence is presented either disproving or confirming any of those beliefs, none of us can say with absolute certainty that our personal experiences or beliefs are fact.
I do find it a curious piece of reasoning that science and religion are mutually exclusive and you can't follow one without the other, a lot of scientists have faith, a lot creationists use science.
I don't understand where you got this from. It wasn't from me.
I do find it a curious piece of reasoning that science and religion are mutually exclusive and you can't follow one without the other, a lot of scientists have faith, a lot creationists use science.
I don't understand where you got this from. It wasn't from me.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.