Christian evangelists upset with Starbucks’ red cups "Snowflakes, doves and trees are out and minimalism is in for Starbuck’s signature holiday cups — to the dismay of Christian evangelists. The coffee chain’s seasonal designs are remixed each year, but this year’s tri-color tone of red, green and white has apparently angered some religious leaders for declaring a so-called “war on Christmas.” “Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus,” wrote former Arizona pastor Joshua Feuerstein in a viral Facebook post that had at least 8 million views Saturday night...." http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/christian-evangelists-upset-with-starbucks’-red-cups/ar-CC5K2t?li=AAa0dzB
Atheists always frame things as "science vs religion". I love the moon landing story. According to the people with their head's up their collective backsides spouting the "billions of years" fantasy stories the moon should have collected yards of dust. They made the moon lander with long legs. They landed it and took pictures of it sitting in a tiny bit of dust. So they stuffed their heads further up their backsides, made some weak arguments, declared the science settled and moved on. Of course, that's what they do, they control the venue for the debate because they are the experts, what would we expect out of such brilliant people? They can engage in endless circular reasoning while speculating about things and calling it "science". They are about the biggest joke ever perpetrated on the human race.
It is true that science is based on axiomatic thinking. It started when Euclid laid down the foundations for Geometry (Euclid probably was more of an encyclopedic writer - the mathematics was done by other people). This inductive and deductive reasoning, along with data from Brahe and theories of Kepler, was subsequently used thousands of years later with extraordinary success by Newton in his Magnus Opus, The Principia, to explain and predict the orbits of the planets. Science in its modern form was born. You have turned upside down the reason this method is used to derive scientific truths. We use the method not to prove some preconceived notion the way religion does. Instead, we lay down axioms as to how the world works. Notice this is based on observation, not by imposing our will on what is there and asking the Pope if this is what God says. We measure a lot of land, and notice that the hypotenuse is a square root. That is what Euclid did. Then, through some magic which we don't quite know how or why it should work, using inductive and deductive reasoning, we are able to predict new phenomena that is nowhere to be seen in the axioms themselves. You are correct, that in some way it is circular reasoning in that we point to its own "atoms of assumptions" and means of arriving at truths in this mechanical form. But all methods of reasoning does this - it is called scaffolding. Religion does it too. The biggest difference between science and other forms of inquiry is that religion is basically a small subject of philosophy. Because this philosophy is accessible to the general population, it is by definition, "popular". People think that science has some sort of war only with religion. In fact, modern scientists think very little of any philosophy when it comes to understanding the natural world [mind you, I mean philosophy in modern terms. In the old days, all subjects including Physics was a "Natural Philosophy" That is why a PhD is a Doctorate of Philosophy]. That science has chosen to distance itself from the other traditional forms of inquiry is not a conceit. It is because like its daughter subject of religion, philosophy in general is an endless "chase your tail endeavor" with no possible resolution. Religion feeds itself to the past. Science is a seed that gives birth to new insight and information, constantly pushing forward to the future. Imagine trying to discover the semiconductor that allows you to type on here with the methods of religion. How could it? It is stuck endlessly in the past, frozen in time. Your argument is that science is also this "endless circular reasoning". However, there is a big difference. Science puts men on the moon, creates cure for cancer, gives us the semiconductor, the combustion engine, graphene, plastic, and the list goes on and on. All philosophy, and by extension religion, gives, is the KKK, Scientology, praying five times a day making sure you face east, 30,000 denominations of Christianity arguing which version of Jesus is correct, oppression of women, and on and on. All science says is, I don't know and I learn by observing and applying mathematical principles to my observation. That anything I can do on this side of the universe I can give you instructions on how to duplicate and get the same result on your side of the universe. Pope, Allah, etc not included. That's it! I will say this though. I do read philosophy, and I find science dismissal of much of philosophy to be detrimental. For example, even within science there are people that will tell you, don't philosophize about quantum mechanics - just compute. This to me is also wrong, and impotent and sterile thinking. In this thread and elsewhere, I have also stated that religion has a place in a humans life and that it can help us build a better life through encouraging hard-won ancient wisdom through humanity's' psychological adolescence. Many scientist think this is wrong and that all religion should be abolished from our thinking. But I don't agree from a practical point of view.
Great post indeed! Thanks! Q Differences Between Traditional and Progressive Education http://www.wingraschool.org/who/progressive.htm Learning is linear, with factual accumulation and skill mastery. vs Learning is spiral, with depth and breadth as goals. Knowledge is absorbed through lectures, worksheets, and texts. vs Knowledge is constructed through play, direct experience, and social interaction. Instruction is linear and largely based on correct answers. vs Instruction is related to central questions and inquiry, often generated by the children. Disciplines, particularly language and math, are separated. vs Disciplines are integrated as children make connections. Skills are taught discretely and are viewed as goals. vs Skills are related to content and are viewed as tools. Source: Robert G. Peters, with thanks to the books Schools of Quality, by John Jay Bonstigl, and In Search of Understanding, by Martin C. Brooks and Jaqueline Grennon, Independent Schools. UQ
Its amazing you could write this and then shut down your brain when you refuse to address the lack of science in the branch of climate science which proclaims that man made co2 is causing warming. Where is your calm cool analytical self? Until you apply your science first approach to agw theory... you are what you implicitly and sometimes explicitly condemn... a religionista with Hansen or Mann as your lider maximo and fraudcurrents your drone acolyte.
"(CNN)The horrific terrorist attacks in Paris have abruptly elevated religious tolerance to a top political issue in the 2016 presidential campaign -- a race already heavily influenced by identity politics. After the Islamic State claimed responsibility for the mass killings that shocked France, Republican White House hopefuls pounced, leveling harsh rhetoric about Islam and calling for a much more aggressive strategy to fight the radical group known as ISIS. Ted Cruz said the United States should deny entry to Muslim refugees from Syria, but leave the door open to fleeing Christians. Allowing tens of thousands of "Syrian Muslims" into the country was "nothing short of lunacy," the Texas senator said, because there is no way to know who among them may be terrorists. "It is a different situation with the Middle Eastern Christians," Cruz said in South Carolina. Republicans to Obama: Keep Syrian refugees out Jeb Bush echoed that view, saying U.S. efforts to assist refugees should focus on Christians..." http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/17/politics/republican-religion-muslim-paris-attacks/index.html