Shroud of Turin - New Findings!!!!!

[Tea Time]

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially as the time passes, and this has been shown again and again by various psychological studies. In fact, the Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will make it easier to question eyewitness testimonies.

 

Then perhaps we should close the courts, because what testimony will really ever be able to fully take its place? Even scientific information has to come from people? They lie and get confused, too? Even in groups.

 

There is no believing anything if honesty is not a value that is deeply cherished. Even worshiped. Again I say, sand is a terrible foundation. We are trying very hard to build on it in our current culture, and you can do so for a while. But it won't last forever.

[Iucounu]

suggesting that being religious and being scientific is some kind of impossibility is rather... unscientific

I didn't suggest that. You must have this confused with another thread.

 

Atheists do not own the scientific method, and keeping theist out of science circles is a growing threat because more and more atheists are resorting to fear, intimidation, and shame (which you can clearly see in this and every similar thread) as a way of influencing the beliefs of up and coming scientists and the population. This method of influence is nothing new, and it always ends BADLY.

It's not that-- it's that theistic science is pseudoscience; it's un-science. Scientists are perfectly welcome to hold religious beliefs, but they are non-scientific in nature and that's what the scientific establishment has recognized time and again (as well as the courts). Meanwhile, pointing out that many important scientists of the past were religious doesn't tend to show a strong correlation between science and religious belief; instead the trend away from religion shows the opposite, if anything.

 

Let's not forget that the religious leanings of past scientists were asserted as a proof of the existence of Jesus:

So, Priests who come up with the big bang theory, monks who make calendars so accurate they're still used today, (Catholicism is Filled with great scientists and thinkers-the list is very, very long) astrophysicist priests who are more brilliant than I would ever hope to be, believe in a totally fictional character. Heh, that's funny.

 

If the best minds today overhwelmingly discount the existence of any deities, what does that prove? You can't have it both ways.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Iucounu

[justamouse]

You can follow the Wikipedia article and do your own searching to confirm what I've written is true. {shrug} In the meantime, with the links right down there at the foot of those pages to some studies to get you started, it seems like you're just choosing to ignore the evidence. Don't shoot me-- I'm just the messenger.

 

 

That's laughable.

I just lost everything on my post. UGH! And I used wiki for you.

 

Shorthand.

 

Father Jaki

After completing undergraduate training in philosophy, theology and mathematics, Father Jaki did graduate work in theology and physics and gained doctorates in theology from the Pontifical Institute in Rome (1950), and in physics from Fordham University (1958), where he studied under the Nobel laureate Victor Hess, the co-discoverer of cosmic rays. He also did post-doctoral research in Philosophy of Science at Stanford University, UC Berkeley, Princeton University and Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton.

Father Jaki authored more than two dozen books on the relation between modern science and orthodox Christianity. He was Fremantle Lecturer at Balliol College, Oxford (1977), Hoyt Fellow at Yale University (1980) and Farmington Institute Lecturer at Oxford University (1988–1989). He was the Gifford Lecturer at Edinburgh University in 1974-75 and 1975-76. In 1987, he was awarded the Templeton Prize for furthering understanding of science and religion.

He was also among the first to claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is relevant for theories of everything (TOE) in theoretical physics.[3] Gödel's theorem states that any theory that includes certain basic facts of number theory and is computably enumerable will be either incomplete or inconsistent. Since any 'theory of everything' will certainly be consistent, it must be either incomplete or unable to prove basic facts about the integers.

maintains that until the Chritian concept of ex nihlio came about, inertia was not understood. Pagans thought the world eternal, and so wouldn't look for a creation point.

 

Then you have Jean Buridan

was a French priest who sowed the seeds of the Copernican revolution in Europe.[1][2] He developed the concept of impetus, the first step toward the modern concept of inertia, and an important development in the history of medieval science. His name is most familiar through the thought experiment known as Buridan's ass (a thought experiment which does not appear in his extant writings).

who laid the way for Newton (who based all of his discoveries on his faith)

 

Then Theirry who (a Catholic) was the first to come up with the "stars and the firmament as being composed of water and air, and not semi divine substances whose behavior must be explained according to principals fundamentally different from those seem to govern things of earth. That insight is positively crucial to the development of science.

 

Thomas Goldstein, a modern historian of science, describes the ultimate importance of the School of Chartres (Catholic!): Formulating the philosophical premises; defining the basic concept of the cosmos from which all later specialized sciences were to grow; systematically reconstructing scientific knowledge of the past and this placing the coming evolution of Western science on a solid traditional footing--each one of these steps sees so crucial that, taken together, they could only mean one thing: that in a period of fifteen to twenty years, around the middle of the twelfth century, a handfull of men were consciously striving to launch the evolution of Western science, and undertook every major step that was needed to achieve that end." ~How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.

 

So, could you have modern science without these? What would modern science be without them?

[justamouse]

Jaki's got cred, right? I mean, I tried to use people that were at least reasonably well learned in their field. :001_smile:

 

Hey, does this mean that Non Christian people who believe in the Big Bang are actually Christian by default? You go all on with your life without the bang, people. Just pretend it didn't happen and go do some science with that.

Edited January 9, 2012 by justamouse

[KidsHappen]

I'm sure the real people that gave testimony would be amused at being considered fictional characters. Perhaps we had better shut down the courts if we cannot tell the difference, and if the testimony of humans is of zero value when it does not line up with someone's predetermined beliefs.

 

This really is nothing more than purposeful obfuscation. I see it all the time coming from non-believers who don't want to work very hard, comments referring to a "spaghetti monster" and nonsense like that. As if the greatest minds in history are dumber than they are because they entertained the idea of a God. Simple and complete propaganda with no other purpose than to un-inform the already un-informed to their point of view by demeaning and shaming believers. In a culture that is rapidly not very intellectual adept, this method of influence truly is very powerful. But it is what it is. Nonsense.

 

Wow! :chillpill: My only point is that books written about someone hardly consititutes proof of their exhistance, as just my single example shows. Even if the book was written as an eyewitness account, as someone else has already pointed out eyewitness testimony is terribly unreliable. My post was a simple statement of fact that was in no way meant to slam your religion.

 

Finally, as to everything else you said, huh? :001_huh: Talk about obfuscation. That was the biggest load of gobbledy-gook I have ever read and I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say. :confused: "Non-believers who don't want to work very hard"? At what? "To un-inform the already un-informed"? WHat does that mean? :001_huh:

 

Oh and I do believe in God. Bad presumption on your part. ;)

[Iucounu]

Finding some scientists from past times who were Christian simply doesn't show that science wouldn't exist without Christianity, or that their particular discoveries would never have been made but for their beliefs. But yeah, I see where you're coming from... really, all astrophysicists are Christians. :hat:

[Tea Time]

Wow! I really wasn't going for a compliment there by saying you were using empty rhetoric. A lot really is lost in translation on the web. In this case, vaguely mentioning sandy foundations doesn't translate to a winning argument, and it can't sum up what doesn't exist.

It was a joke; how dumb do you think I am? :D

 

I have nothing to answer for, and certainly not slander (for future reference, slander must be spoken). I think again we are victims either of miscommunication or of willful avoidance. What I actually wrote was that one could find someone with a science degree to espouse just about any viewpoint, even if it be from a bed in an asylum. What this means is that one can't draw conclusions about the truth of an assertion by an isolated person with a science degree-- the assertion might be false for reasons ranging from mistake to even insanity. Picking and choosing statements from a few people, and presenting them as some sort of proof that science actually supports the existence of God or some such malarkey, despite the quite overwhelming weight of scientific opinion to the contrary, is simply fallacious.

 

That's not fear-mongering, it's simply shutting down a fallacy on a discussion board.

 

No, this is called back peddling. Your comments have powerful implications, and I could mine similar ones from this board and from comments on articles all. day. long. You could have used any number of ways to make the point you are claiming to make and not used the crazy person suggesting. Perhaps you should start working on moving away from the poisonous rhetoric.

 

I didn't suggest that. You must have this confused with another thread.

Every time someone openly and aggressively mocks and shames a believer suggesting that they are not thinking rationally, the implication that they are not qualified to do science is being put forth. If you do not want to participate in that process, then don't do it.

 

It's not that-- it's that theistic science is pseudoscience; it's un-science. Scientists are perfectly welcome to hold religious beliefs, but they are non-scientific in nature and that's what the scientific establishment has recognized time and again (as well as the courts). Meanwhile, pointing out that many important scientists of the past were religious doesn't tend to show a strong correlation between science and religious belief; instead the trend away from religion shows the opposite, if anything.

 

Okay, now here we may have common ground, if you could muster the will to have some common ground with a theist. I know well that pseudoscience practiced in the name of religion does not do religion any favors, but I have seen it practiced by atheists, too, just for the record. It is equally ugly, and sometimes it is for less cheery reasons.

 

But make no mistake, there is an issue in the scientific community, and it does not want to sort out all these subtleties. There are many, you may be one, that do not want any believers to practice science. There are many that do not want them to exists. As a Catholic, I have to cope with the reality that there are Catholics that do bad things. I have to take responsibility for that. I have to own them and try to manage them, the best I can. I think the scientific community should be expected to vet itself, too. But don't read more into that than I intend. All I am saying is that I can clearly see a vicious bias in science that has the potential to be very destructive, and it is not at all scientific but is part of human nature.

 

I have blathered on enough, and I have to go to bed. Work comes early. Thank you for the discussion and being a good sport. I do appreciate it! And you can have the last word. Feel free to say I have nice rhetoric, or maybe good use of emoticons, or something nice about me, you know, just saying I am not insane would be nice. (Says she from the asylum! :lol:)

[Cindyg]

Oh, my! I never thought about cloning. It would be like some kind of wild sci-fi novel to clone Jesus. Thank goodness the DNA is too far gone. That poor clone's life would be a nightmare!

 

The book (series) has been written, and it is really, really awesome. Seriously, this is a must-read.

[Tea Time]

Wow! :chillpill: My only point is that books written about someone hardly consititutes proof of their exhistance, as just my single example shows. Even if the book was written as an eyewitness account, as someone else has already pointed out eyewitness testimony is terribly unreliable. My post was a simple statement of fact that was in no way meant to slam your religion.

 

Finally, as to everything else you said, huh? :001_huh: Talk about obfuscation. That was the biggest load of gobbledy-gook I have ever read and I honestly have no idea what you were trying to say. :confused: "Non-believers who don't want to work very hard"? At what? "To un-inform the already un-informed"? WHat does that mean? :001_huh:

 

Oh and I do believe in God. Bad presumption on your part. ;)

 

Thanks for popping back in here and responding. Sorry if it seems like "gobbledy-gook" to you. I don't really think your comment was a statement of fact because there really were people who provided a testimony in the Gospels; whereas, the Potter characters are fictional, so that is not really a statement of any kind of fact that I comprehend.

 

I did consider that you might believe in God, so my comments were more generally directed. The point is more that as a culture we are moving in a direction that uses nonsensical arguments to say that believers are irrational. It is so common that they even get picked up by believers.

 

I guess I am the only theist that is tired of being called irrational, especially in irrational ways. :confused:

[kalanamak]

 

This really is nothing more than purposeful obfuscation. I see it all the time coming from non-believers who don't want to work very hard, comments referring to a "spaghetti monster" and nonsense like that.

 

Sometimes is it mere indifference to a topic that is BORING (sorry, but religion is really a non-item to me). If you want to "work very hard", have at it, but those who don't take your efforts seriously are not necessarily lazy. More like tired of it. Yes the FSM is "nonsense". It isn't meant to be "sense". That is the point. The only effort I put into religion is to watch it like a poised cobra. People like me were burnt at the stake in times past.

[annandatje]

Sometimes is it mere indifference to a topic that is BORING (sorry, but religion is really a non-item to me). If you want to "work very hard", have at it, but those who don't take your efforts seriously are not necessarily lazy. More like tired of it. Yes the FSM is "nonsense". It isn't meant to be "sense". That is the point. The only effort I put into religion is to watch it like a poised cobra. People like me were burnt at the stake in times past.

 

:iagree::iagree: I could never get interested in it beyond a cultural and historical perspective. Religion and politics literally have been a lethal brew in past centuries.

[Tea Time]

Sometimes is it mere indifference to a topic that is BORING (sorry, but religion is really a non-item to me). If you want to "work very hard", have at it, but those who don't take your efforts seriously are not necessarily lazy. More like tired of it. Yes the FSM is "nonsense". It isn't meant to be "sense". That is the point. The only effort I put into religion is to watch it like a poised cobra. People like me were burnt at the stake in times past.

 

:iagree::iagree: I could never get interested in it beyond a cultural and historical perspective. Religion and politics literally have been a lethal brew in past centuries.

 

Lol.

 

It is THIS world you were born into. This one. And the particular attributes of This World include religion. And philosophy. In legion. And you practice them in your own way, just as every human has since he/she became human, whether you believe you do or not. You need not study them or hold a personal interest, but having respect for their influence (real, empirical influence that could be found, not your pet hypothesis), is required of anyone with a science credential if science has any hope of not evolving away all together, because science doesn't exist apart from a basic belief in the existence of an objective truth, and a kind of brutal integrity (gifts given in the West from a deeply religious tradition). Again, this really cuts to the heart of my points in this thread.

 

As to the lethal brew, politics, although it is unavoidable and can be used wisely, is nothing more than a broadened term for the structures in place to serve people in meeting their often very selfish aims, and it will combine with religion or science in a similarly dangerous manner. We can observe this in history, have to be blind not to see it, so your preference for blaming religion for all evils done historically is really just that. Your preference.

 

Again, if insults and humiliation are all that can be said (and what better humiliation is there than calling theists irrational and if that doesn't work, telling them they are irrelevant - a kind of shunning), then I guess this thread is dead.

[Teachin'Mine]

*sigh* You know, if you want to believe it, believe it. If you don't, then don't. I don't know why, when one group is happy, another has to come in and bash it. I saw this thread as a JAWM type thread, by the wording.

 

However, here's my two cents: I don't have an opinion on the shroud. It's not here nor there with me. It neither makes nor breaks my faith. My faith is beyond such. But this is not to say that I haven't had other experiences that I acknowledge...and those experiences simply add to my faith. If the shroud does that for some people then I see no reason to make an issue over it.

 

Jesus, regardless what one thinks of him, existed as much as Edison existed; it's history, people.

 

*rant off*

 

 

This thread was about sharing some good news. Look where it's gone.

[mommaduck]

This thread was about sharing some good news. Look where it's gone.

I know. I was happy for ya'll. I'm sorry to see this thread being torn down by others.

[Tea Time]

Sometimes is it mere indifference to a topic that is BORING (sorry, but religion is really a non-item to me). If you want to "work very hard", have at it, but those who don't take your efforts seriously are not necessarily lazy. More like tired of it. Yes the FSM is "nonsense". It isn't meant to be "sense". That is the point. The only effort I put into religion is to watch it like a poised cobra. People like me were burnt at the stake in times past.

 

Religion is the poised cobra or you are the poised cobra? Very ambiguous the way you wrote it. Interesting, to say the least. Myself, I likely would have died in a gas chamber in times not so past.

 

I know. I was happy for ya'll. I'm sorry to see this thread being torn down by others.

 

I'm sorry, mammaduck, I really am. That was definitely not my intention. You can see clearly in my posts that my intention was pretty much to make a singular point. But if you want to make peace, by all means, do so. I will not take it any further.