 Posted Saturday, October 04, 2008 8:06 AM
|
|
|
|
I have enjoyed reading the discussion boards but avoid any that pertain to the "christian" point of view.
One reason we break the threads into categories is to help people avoid religious discussion if they don't want it. That's why I moved this thread, which was originally posted in the New to Forms category, over to this category.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 05, 2008 8:29 PM
|
|
|
|
Linda (10/3/2008)
Rowing the Christian Science boat against the tide of medical science is the same as rowing the Fundamentalist Intelligent Design boat against the tide of all otherareas of scientific knowlege.
Actually, it's not the same at all.A lot ofscientific evidence is better explained by "design" than by "chance." (For some examples of natural phenomena that clearly indicate design, see AQuestionOfOrigins.org.) The CS rejection of medical science is a completely different issue.
There is no empirically testable way to prove that a natural phenomenon is created by a designer. William Dembski himself, the only Intelligent Design advocate to create a "scientific test" of specified complexity, admitted himself that his explanatory filter (the name of the test) can produce false positives. For those of you who don't know about it, you can read about the explanatory filter here (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm). Dembski himself wrote this, so you can see that I'm not trying to give you a "spun" version. The explanatory filter is a three-part test. When you find an object with an unknown origin, you ask:
1. Does a law explain it?
2. Does chance explain it?
3. Does design explain it?
Dembski was completely correct in saying that this test is a way that governmental organizations and various other well-respected bodies do things like solve crimes (e.g. was a suspect at a crime scene given this DNA evidence?) or even how scientists determine cases of data falsification (e.g. can a scientists repeat a certain experiment, or was the data made up?). However, these examples are all cases where the study system (how DNA is linked to a person's identity, how to repeat a scientific experiment) is known to the investigating parties.
What about when the study system is unknown? Say, for example, that one day on a hike in the woods you find an extremely symmetrical grooved object with a perfectly round hole down the middle. Because you are a human, with the knowledge of our cultural history, you immediately think that this must be some sort of ancient bead, and you are very interested because no native people were known to live in that area. You have just applied the explanatory filter. You think that a natural law and chance can't explain this circular stone with a circular hole, and so it must have been designed.
It turns out that actually happened in India. (http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/cambay3.php?p=1%20target=) Those are pictures of the artefacts. Many archaeologists thought that these were beads, evidence of a civilization living in the area 10,000 years ago. Geologists have countered that argument by comparing the bead-like objects to fossils from British Columbia where precipitation around invertebrate burrows or tree roots calcified. (http://members.cox.net/pyrophyllite/geofact.html). The explanatory filter didn't work for the archaeologists because they simply didn't know that a law could explain it. Not being aware of a scientific law that can explain a natural phenomenon isn't an excuse to claim that it's designed.
Christian Scientists claim that people who pray and are healed constitute scientific evidence that Christian Science works. Intelligent Design advocates claim that things that we can't explain scientifically must be designed. They are both equal in that neither one actually relies on science itself. This is not to say that science is always right. There will always be questions that science can't answer.
I looked at that website you posted, Linda. I respectfully disagree that listing the complexity of a human hand is a thorough scientific argument as to why a hand is designed. Anonymous, Ann, Square Peg, and Pumpkit, I just wanted you all to know that you're not alone. I am helping someone very close to me recover from Christian Science, and I would never recommend that this person go from one false understanding of science to another. I am not against embracing Jesus, although I do not personally.
-Friend of an ex-CS
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 6:03 AM
|
|
|
|
There is no empirically testable way to prove that a natural phenomenon is created by a designer. You're right. There is also no empirically testable way to prove that nature was NOT created by a designer. Nobody was there to observe the world back then, and nobody can reproduce what occurred. So the Big Bang, the formation of stars and planets, the first chemicals on earth, the occurrence of the first life (how DID those non-living chemicals suddenly start reproducing themselves?) -- none of those events can be observed or reproduced. Nobody can prove that they involved design, and nobody can prove that they did not involve design. The weakness of a viewpoint that precludes design is that it automatically throws out one possible answer without even considering it. That is bias and, frankly, pretty lousy science. Responsible science sets up a model and looks at how well the data fit the model; if they don't, then the model needs to be revised. Both evolution (or any premise that defines a creator out of the picture) and intelligent design are models. They cannot prove how things occurred, but we can test these models by seeing how the data we collect fit into them. You are correct that the intelligent design model does not PROVE that the hand was designed, but it would be incorrect to say that the evolution model proves that the hand was NOT designed. As long as we cannot prove that the universe and life came to be all on their own -- somthing from nothing -- it's good science to leave the possibility open for a creator as one possible explanation. We've discussed the evolution/creation issue in another thread entitled Interit the Wind (Evolution), so I you want to continue this discussion that might be a good place to do it. In any case, I'm glad you're trying to help your friend recover from problems encountered in CS.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous October 5, 2008 @ 11:29:49 PM
There is no empirically testable way to prove that a natural phenomenon is created by a designer.
Please see response in "Social Issues Relevant to CS and Christianity... » Inherit the Wind (Evolution)":
http://www.christianway.org/forums/FindPost15177.aspx
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, October 06, 2008 8:41 AM
|
|
|
|
[i]I am sure you mean well. However, to be blunt, I have already stated that I am not interested in Christianity, so please do not assume that I am in need of saving. Also, I do not appreciate your statements criticizing my religious leanings. That is not what this site is about, is it? If in fact this site is meant to proselytize Christianity to former Christian Scientists, then I will not be around any longer.
Ann:
Boy, can I identify with what you are saying!!! When I first said Christian Science was false, I was very anti-religion. My best friend was the son of a Pastor, and he and I would discuss (debate)the Bible, etc. and his sister would say he lost. His cause was not helped by the fact that his church was one of the most unfriendly places I'd ever been.
One day on campus the Gideon's were there passing out New Testaments. I remember literally laughing at the fellow who gave me one (I did take it), thinking what is this old man doing passing out this book (he doesn't seem so old now, of course, as I have aged).
To make a long story short, eventually I read that New Testament, cover to cover, which is something I had never done while in Christian Science. I didn't do it as part of a Bible Study at a church or anything like that.
Have you ever done this Ann? Forget what all the preachers, denominations say, etc. Maybe every one of them has it wrong. What message did the authors of the New Testament want to convey? Does it deserve to be given a fair shake, and then taken from there (pro or con)? If you haven't read it from cover to cover, would you at least be open to doing so?
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:28 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous (10/6/2008)
[i]I am sure you mean well. However, to be blunt, I have already stated that I am not interested in Christianity, so please do not assume that I am in need of saving. Also, I do not appreciate your statements criticizing my religious leanings. That is not what this site is about, is it? If in fact this site is meant to proselytize Christianity to former Christian Scientists, then I will not be around any longer.
Ann:
Boy, can I identify with what you are saying!!! When I first said Christian Science was false, I was very anti-religion.
I have attended many different church denominations in my life, taken classes in comparative religion, and am by no means just in my first years of being out of CS. I left CS 22 years ago. And I am not anti-religion. As I said, I rather like Hinduism.
Have you ever done this Ann? Forget what all the preachers, denominations say, etc. Maybe every one of them has it wrong. What message did the authors of the New Testament want to convey? Does it deserve to be given a fair shake, and then taken from there (pro or con)? If you haven't read it from cover to cover, would you at least be open to doing so?
Yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover, more than once, both as a Christian Scientist and after. It's interesting that you assume that I haven't. Like other writings, it was written at certain times in certain cultures according to the particular spiritual needs of those people at that time. If you derive spiritual or religious inspiration from that, that is fine.
Again, I have no interest in your efforts to convert me.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Phoenix Rising (10/3/2008)
I hope you DO stay Ann because we are of a like mind. I really love your posts and they are important to me. I too have lost my desire to cozy up to God and Jesus. In my lifetime, what I have seen said and done in the name of religion and the Bible sickens me and I want no part of it any more. I side withJohn Lennonwhere he imagined a more perfect world where people dont hate each other, because they dont have religion.
I try to ignore the fundamentalist opinions here. They are always spoken in a loving way and they HAVE provided this site for us. If Following Him thinks you have substituted a liking for CS for a liking for Hinduism because of some similarities, I would suggest to him, with respect, that he has substituted the irrational, brainlessbelief in CS healing and MBE's divine authorization, with the irrational, brainless belief of Young Earth Creationism. Rowing the Christian Science boat against the tide of medical science is the same as rowing the Fundamentalist Intelligent Design boat against the tide of all otherareas of scientific knowlege. SAMEo SAMEo ; )
Althoughmany of us are in different places now that we are beyond Christian Science, that doesnt matter as far as this forum is concerned. What we all pretty much agree on, and what we are here to talk about and find comfort in, is our mutual repudiation of Christian Science and how it has hurt us and the ones we love. So hang in there, you have so many important things to say!
Square Peg
Thanks! The reason I like Hinduism is because it is huge, ancient, and very tolerant of differing opinions (aside from a few more strict sects.) The tolerance is the main thing I like. And I tend to believe in reincarnation. However, it's purely a philosophical interest on my part. I have no plans to convert to Hinduism, and most Hindus believe you have to be born a Hindu to really be one anyway. The culture is too different, but it's very interesting.
Mainly, religion interests me as historical man-made institutions. The history of religion is very interesting. Especially since when you get to reading a lot about it, you find out how much Christianity borrowed from pagan and Eastern religious thought. We were taught it was brand new with Jesus, but it actually grew out of many older religions, especially Egyptian.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 8:46 AM
|
|
|
|
Ann:
Please forgive me. I guess I may have assumed that you had not read the NT cover to cover, but I was not trying to be condescending I assure you. We have had many posts of folks either who have left or are struggling with CS who have never read either the whole Bible or the NT in its entirety. What is conveyed in the Bible both as a whole and without MBE's word filters is a big surprise to many, therefore.
John
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, October 15, 2008 10:07 AM
|
|
|
|
John,
There's no need for forgiveness. Perhaps I overreacted. I get so many people at my front door trying to get me to come to their church that I am thinking of getting a welcome mat that says, "Yes, I have read the Bible!"
Please understand that while reading the Bible is deeply meaningful to many, the fact that some people, including myself, find their spirituality in other ways does not mean we just need to read the Bible to accept it. There are many different religious paths in the world for a reason -- different paths have meaning for different people, and what works for me may not work for you, and vice versa. To me, to leave one strict, demanding religion only to embrace another, does not appeal to me. But obviously, many on this web site have found their own healing from CS in Bible study and the acceptance of Christ Jesus as described in the Bible as opposed to the separation of Christ and Jesus as described by MBE, and I am happy for them, but for me, the answer lay elsewhere. My spiritual path is just as meaningful and fulfilling to me as yours is to you.
Ann
|
|
|
|