Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Scientific Method: Do You Use It?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Scientific Method: Do You Use It?

    I often chat with Atheists and Skeptics who talk about using the scientific method to reach conclusions, and I find that often neither Atheists nor Christians seem to have a solid grasp on just what the scientific method is or how to apply it properly when formulating conclusions.

    I'm curious to get some discussion going from both Atheists and Christians on these issues; how do we know when the other party is using the scientific method and are we humble enough to recognize it when they do? I look forward to hearing what you all think.


  • #2
    Can you give an example of the conversations you've had with atheists and skeptics? Personally, I approach many things with a skeptical lens. If we are talking religion, or Christianity specifically, the scientific method is not much use because it relies on faith. That does not mean our faith is irrational, but trying to reduce it to some form of naturalism simply won't work.
    Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
    Ecc 7:10

    John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by teddyv View Post
      Can you give an example of the conversations you've had with atheists and skeptics?
      Sure. One example would be the the Bible as evidence. It's a collection of records, testimonies, and letters which collectively we call the Bible, but the book itself has become so steeped in religious tradition and superstition that they cannot see it as documentation. They say, "it was written by man therefore it's not evidence", but then ignore the fact that all the other history they know of came from books/documents written by man. There's a double standard there which is not consistent with the scientific method, where you observe, question, test, and then form conclusions. While calling it the "scientific method" seems to imply that it's something only for specific fields, what I'm referring to in the principle of reasoning through the issues.

      Comment


      • #4
        For your example, the Bible is certainly one, if not the most, verified writings from history. Anyone discounting that fact is being quite silly. Whether one believes the writings as sacred is another matter altogether.
        Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
        Ecc 7:10

        John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by teddyv View Post
          For your example, the Bible is certainly one, if not the most, verified writings from history. Anyone discounting that fact is being quite silly. Whether one believes the writings as sacred is another matter altogether.
          As true as that may be, I think it matters what is and isn’t verified in the Bible. I say this because I’ve watched people completely dismiss the Bible as fiction in the ways that John mentioned, but I’ve also seen people attempt to use the fact that many aspect of the Bible are indisputably historical in order to grant that same credibility to the unverified or unverifiable aspects of the Bible, like the Titanic definitely existed and it definitely sank, but you cannot use that to validate all of the events depicted in the movie Titanic.
          "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BraveUlysesses View Post

            As true as that may be, I think it matters what is and isn’t verified in the Bible. I say this because I’ve watched people completely dismiss the Bible as fiction in the ways that John mentioned, but I’ve also seen people attempt to use the fact that many aspect of the Bible are indisputably historical in order to grant that same credibility to the unverified or unverifiable aspects of the Bible, like the Titanic definitely existed and it definitely sank, but you cannot use that to validate all of the events depicted in the movie Titanic.
            Sure, that's fair enough and I agree with your point. I was leaning more to the first point of people just outright dismissing the Bible. I am certainly not a literalist when it comes to certain aspects of the Blble, notably on creation and origins.
            Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
            Ecc 7:10

            John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


            Comment


            • #7
              When it comes to the scriptures, the issue is more the heart than science. Though believing eye witness accounts would probably play a role in someone's belief system. Utlimately, if someone is genuinely seeking the truth, they will ultimately come to believe what the bible has to say about Jesus and God, etc.
              Matt 9:13
              13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
              NASU

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by teddyv View Post

                Sure, that's fair enough and I agree with your point. I was leaning more to the first point of people just outright dismissing the Bible. I am certainly not a literalist when it comes to certain aspects of the Blble, notably on creation and origins.
                Yeah, I Should say I agree with your and john’s points too. More to your initial post John, I think that one good means of knowing when you are talking to someone that is attempting to use logic and reasoning in a scientifical way is to be well versed in it yourself. I also think that scientifical people tend to be pretty conservative in their claims, and don’t shrink from expressing uncertainty when they are not certain. I think they tend to offer up sources and evidence and don’t take offense to being asked for sources or evidence. They tend to be open to discussing the veracity or their sources and evidence. I think that they tend to shy away from ad hmominem. Stuff like that I think.
                "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
                  like the Titanic definitely existed and it definitely sank, but you cannot use that to validate all of the events depicted in the movie Titanic.
                  The context is what makes the difference here. The movie Titanic does not purport to be an account of what happened on the ship. It is presented as a dramatization. That is not the case for the testimonies and letters collected in the Bible; they claim to be eye-witness testimonies and first hand observations.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post
                    When it comes to the scriptures, the issue is more the heart than science.
                    I would say it's not a matter of one being more important than the other, but rather that both are required to work in harmony. There are times when you hear something which has a, "ring of truth". You can't rationally describe why it sound true, but something about it just feels right. That is a situation where I'd say the heart is working to communicate what really is a rational truth; it's just that you don't know how to explain it rationally. That does not mean you will never know how to explain it rationally. In fact, we are obligated to find a rational explanation as that is what all learning is. This issue of feeling something is right isn't a wrong way to interpret information, but we should not be content with just a feeling that something is right or wrong; we should look for reasons as to why it is one or the other. That is what the scientific method is for.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John Helpher View Post

                      The context is what makes the difference here. The movie Titanic does not purport to be an account of what happened on the ship. It is presented as a dramatization. That is not the case for the testimonies and letters collected in the Bible; they claim to be eye-witness testimonies and first hand observations.
                      Yes, I see. I used the Titanic to illustrate the point that the verified parts of the Bible or any document for that matter cannot be used to Verify the unverified or unverifiable parts of the Bible. The writings of Herodotus is probably a better analogue, as some things are verified and have been historically useful and some things are wildly inaccurate, but I figured Titanic was more relatable.

                      edit: do you believe that the verified aspects of the Bible can be used to verify the unverified and or unverifiable aspects of the Bible?
                      "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by John Helpher View Post

                        I would say it's not a matter of one being more important than the other, but rather that both are required to work in harmony. There are times when you hear something which has a, "ring of truth". You can't rationally describe why it sound true, but something about it just feels right. That is a situation where I'd say the heart is working to communicate what really is a rational truth; it's just that you don't know how to explain it rationally. That does not mean you will never know how to explain it rationally. In fact, we are obligated to find a rational explanation as that is what all learning is. This issue of feeling something is right isn't a wrong way to interpret information, but we should not be content with just a feeling that something is right or wrong; we should look for reasons as to why it is one or the other. That is what the scientific method is for.
                        Do you think the scientific method helped Abraham know God better? Or Paul? Or Moses? The scientific method has it's place and I am not saying God won't use it. However, knowing and experiencing God is a heart issue. When we respond to the word of God, God gives us more light. When we suppress the truth, then we lose the light we had as our heart becomes hard.

                        God bless!

                        Mark
                        Matt 9:13
                        13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
                        NASU

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Brother Mark View Post

                          Do you think the scientific method helped Abraham know God better? Or Paul? Or Moses? The scientific method has it's place and I am not saying God won't use it. However, knowing and experiencing God is a heart issue. When we respond to the word of God, God gives us more light. When we suppress the truth, then we lose the light we had as our heart becomes hard.

                          God bless!

                          Mark
                          Hi Mark. I think people make a mistake when they confuse a title like the "scientific method" as something separate from what happens in the heart just because it sounds like something that should only occur in a lab. The spirit of the scientific method is a sincere desire to know the truth. You observe, ask questions, postulate, perform experiments and tests, form conclusions, revise postulations and conclusions if necessary based on the results of those experiments, and repeat the process all along the way for every new bit of information or perspective which comes along the way. The performance of that process is a demonstration of sincerity in action. It is evidence of what happens in the heart. If a person is not performing these processes, that becomes evidence that the person's heart is not sincere (at least in one specific area).

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The "scientific method" only applies to observations/tests that are reproducible. History cannot be observed, so it's not a scientific study. But we can use science to test whether something could happen, or the probability of when it occurred, then these can be used to interpret the reliability of a historical account. At the same time, just because our data shows something could happen and when it might have, these can never answer if it did happen. If you think back to Genesis 1, God spoke creation into existence. Whether it happened this way or it's written as an allegory, we will never be able to answer scientifically until we can witness and reproduce it.
                            「耶和華聖潔無比,獨一無二,沒有磐石像我們的上帝。
                            撒母耳記上 (1 Samuel) 2:2

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Aviyah View Post
                              The "scientific method" only applies to observations/tests that are reproducible. History cannot be observed, so it's not a scientific study. But we can use science to test whether something could happen, or the probability of when it occurred, then these can be used to interpret the reliability of a historical account. At the same time, just because our data shows something could happen and when it might have, these can never answer if it did happen. If you think back to Genesis 1, God spoke creation into existence. Whether it happened this way or it's written as an allegory, we will never be able to answer scientifically until we can witness and reproduce it.
                              I don't want to be too pedantic, but history can absolutely be observed. Any time you look at the stars you are observing history. Also, history is recorded in the rocks beneath your feet.
                              Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these?” For it is not wise to ask such questions.
                              Ecc 7:10

                              John777 exists to me only in quoted form.


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X