Hi JC, knowing your interest in science, feel free to check out my latest post, a link to an essay on values by a Cambridge-educated physicist from my church who's taught in Glasgow University since the 70s. The essay itself's 4 pps, but it's sparked some comments from the atheists about evidence, in response to which he has pointed out that they 'ignore the fact that all evidence needs interpretation, otherwise it is just data. Interpretation requires a system of meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence". An insight I think's worth pondering, and I've commented on further there myself. I know from your recent comment n J's C&M; post that like me you're busy this week, but when you've a mo do drop by. I speak as a Christian who likes both to challenge and be challenged. Peace at Christmas.
Billy
· 2 years ago
in response to which he has pointed out that they 'ignore the fact that all evidence needs interpretation, otherwise it is just data.
And we have pointed out that the predictive powers of science help in interpreting data - something totally absent in theology.
We can be more sure of the natureof the universe because of this. You cant do that with theology, therefore its claims are not based in any demonstrable reality, therefore, they are not rational. Extending that logic, it then becomes impossible to know anything concerning the suernatural - should it exist. Again, it is not a rational position to hold.
Scientific evidence is not subjective - you can test it and see if your predictions fit. If they do, you can form a higher level of understanding, called a theory.
The theory of gravity and electromagnetic theory has been used to put objects in space and bring them back again with great precision - this underlines the reality of the interpretation. I dont see anything comparable in the theologies
Bruce
· 2 years ago
The real live academic physicist who's a Christian has left a comment on the post 'A physicist on values' on my blog. It's comment 22. Welcome to read it (and surrounding comments!) when you're able. Plenty of atheist evangelism on my blog and others, so (in a good spirit) just doing a wee bit myself! Cheers.
All Comments
meaning, which clearly is beyond "evidence".
An insight I think's worth pondering, and I've commented on further there myself.
I know from your recent comment n J's C&M; post that like me you're busy this week, but when you've a mo do drop by. I speak as a Christian who likes both to challenge and be challenged.
Peace at Christmas.
And we have pointed out that the predictive powers of science help in interpreting data - something totally absent in theology.
We can be more sure of the natureof the universe because of this.
You cant do that with theology, therefore its claims are not based in any demonstrable reality, therefore, they are not rational. Extending that logic, it then becomes impossible to know anything concerning the suernatural - should it exist. Again, it is not a rational position to hold.
Scientific evidence is not subjective - you can test it and see if your predictions fit. If they do, you can form a higher level of understanding, called a theory.
The theory of gravity and electromagnetic theory has been used to put objects in space and bring them back again with great precision - this underlines the reality of the interpretation.
I dont see anything comparable in the theologies