Why Hate Science?

Post Reply New Topic

Of course.



If it takes a PhD in Theology to understand, then it probably isn't worth mentioning.

I was forced to help my dad wash his car. Appaently, whenever one does not have time to go into detail about something, he's lying. Lovely.

ANYhoo...In the Christian doctine, mankind has always had the ability to make their own choice, whether it was for good or bad. There are always consequenes for a decision we make, whether it involves others or ourselves. Due to this,God often allows us to make our choice. Thus, we either have a profit, neutral, loss, or a death at the end. Though I pity the poor soilders, they at least have alternative choices. Getting killed does not. (Though,I must consider their P.O.V too but I'm not at my brightest.)

Not really.

1986 Honda CRX-HF
2012 Honda CRZ

The latter car is modeled after the gas saver from the 80s of a similar name. Even Honda's flagship hybrid, the insight, doesn't do as well.
2012 Honda Insight

A Civic, Corolla, Camry, etc, all pretty much make the same mpg as they did in the 80s. The only difference now that is positive is that the car's have better bodies and safety features so you don't die if you crash. Cars weigh a lot more now. Some is arguably due to a heavier frame or airbags, but some is just due to having more luxury crap/being bigger. Also, both the two cars below are hybrids, whereas the regular CRX was a normal car with a normal engine. The VW Polo is a good example of a car we can't get here because it's too small. The problem isn't even really a technological issue, it's more just people in America feel entitled to drive their kids around in f*****g land yachts, beginning with the big giant American cars of the 60s, and evolving to SUVs once CAFE fuel efficiency standards put those cars down. I mean sure, we could tack like 5-6K onto the price of every car and add batteries and an electric motor and actually be worse for the environment (yay for mining) or we could drive smaller cars.

Hell, if we wanted to be REALLY good for the environment, we could just keep driving our old cars instead of just turning them into scrap metal because the head gasket is blown like most people do now with their cars. But of course this would cause the "economy" to crash, and it'd take away "jobs" so we obviously can't have that. Everyone should be driving a new car because it's the American dream blah blah blah.

You're missing the point. Why do Christians claim God heals people with illnesses and disabilities that can otherwise be temporarily "healed" with the method of faith healing when God can't do something more amazing and distinctive which is to miraculously extend the limbs of amputees?

No reason to hate science. It is what it is. Science is not capable of validating all that is. It's limited in scope until something we can't prove becomes provable.

Good question. Honestly, the best I can think is that there will still be non-believers even if God did that. Besides, there are the ''Beginning of Sorrows'' which seems to credit God for me.

Exactly.

Why does God only seem to heal "invisible" illnesses (cancer, diabetes, migraines, et cetera), and never the "visible" ones (amputations, enunculations, third-degree burns, et cetera)?

There is not one, single, documented case where a missing eye, limb, or organ spontaneously re-grew after intercessory prayer. If I am wrong in this, please provide names, dates, locations and any other data that I may have missed in 40 years of research, because I would surely like to have my hand made whole again.

I have looked online and found no example.

hallo! d'ja miss me?

Cubey, you won't find one; it has never, ever happened.

but really, let's keep this one going!

Fnord: remember my questioning you about how you thought psychology was a pseudoscience? have you read about this?

"NIMH delivers a kill-shot to DSMV"

supremely interesting...

Science nowadays does like to claim understanding over the 'invisible' illnesses as well. The early Christian history is filled with miraculous stories of that kind though, but it's up to anyone if they should take those stories literally.

Starfish grow back limbs routinely.

Oh, you meant humans.

Maybe God just loves the starfish more. He gave bacteria dominion over the earth. He gave starfish and several other creatures the ability to grow back limbs. Maybe God does exist but our wrong asumption is that humans are His favorite species.

Yes.

It seems the woo-woo crowd doesn't have any appreciation for objective standards. I still think that clinical psychology is largely subjective pseudo-science, which is why I sought out a psychiatrist for my diagnosis. Psychiatrists are real doctors who specialize in neurological disorders and who have been trained in the Scientific Method. Psychologists seem to each be trying to push his or her own personal philosophy, which seems to be just one step above "psychic" flim-flam.

have you any links please?

Depends on which perspective the clinical psychologist adopts. I agree that psychodynamic and humanist perspectives are not quite scientific. But the other three perspectives (cognitive, behaviorist, and evolutionary) are in line with science a lot of the times. And most psychologists (clinical or whatever) today adopt a combination of these perspectives rather than stick to one. Also, many psychologists have conducted controlled experiments to test hypotheses and such about human mind and behavior. I'm currently majoring in psychology so I could eventually do research on the human mind and behavior.

Sorry, no links to my exes or to their weird mind-game playing friends. I would not want to inflict them upon anyone here.

but you loved them once