Prayers from the Heart (Inspire Charming Petites) (Inspire Charming Petites Ser)

How about another trite, hoary, long-debunked example?

• The Best Bakeries in America.
• Clicking Her Heels.
• Diary: Alone on Earth.

You mean quantum mechanics. There are many wildly different interpretations of QM, which all give the same predictions and all fit the data. No, I meant relativity. Relativity I use to show how science can explain problems where different observers see different results. The whole order thing went out the window with the advent of quantum theory. Science long ago learned that perception can be untrustworthy, and has devised methods to mitigate the situation.

No, the next step is to find a causal link between A and B. Leaving it like it is give mere correlation without causation. In fact, simple correlation without causation is a common cause of accusation of junk science. It depends on the particular situation, the nature and frequency of the outlyers, and so forth.

Far too much to go into here, but there are many books. There is always debate. Debate is the lifeblood of science. Conformity is the lifeblood of religion. I was thinking more along the lines of blackholes versus gravastars, emergent complexity versus natural selection, etc. I forget where I first got it from it certainly was not an original thought of own but I subscribe the idea that there is an axiom that science relies upon and it is this: It is not really much of an axiom, as unless we assume that the universe is not something that was constructed with the appearance of age then there is nothing to be learnt by looking at it.

On a totally separate points. Phil, any idea when your new book is planned for publication in the UK? I finally gave into to my ban on buying any new books until I have made inroads into the pile I have waiting to be read, and ordered your first over the weekend. Repeatedly making the same assertion does nothing to prove it. Was I not deferential enough to my superiors, Aerimus?

Maybe you can give me lessons in ass-kissing. Number 5 is a joke: My brain is capable of recognizing all relevant patterns brought to me by my senses. Actually, science is a way of teasing out the truth. All of this raises a question: Way to show your misogyny. Is that mandatory where you come from? Most of what you post here seems nothing more than ad-hominems, and you seldom seem to respond to the arguments. So your arguments are actually in favor of science: Might want to tell that one to the ethnically Jewish physicists who dominated physics in the 20th century.

Modern chaos theory is not the chaos I was talking about. Chaos theory still allows predictions. Philosophical chaos means totally unpredictable. Hmm, I wonder how human beings know about the data those devices generate if not via their senses. Could it be telepathic communication? That said methods actually work is yet another assumption adding to the growing body of scientific faith. And how to do you propose to find this causal link without observation of event A happening before event B? Whatever method you come up with is yet another assumption which must be believed in based on faith.

Whatever statistical methods you devise are yet more assumptions to add to the scientific faith pile. Yeah, when I want advice about reasonable debate I need look no further than the reasonable Mr. Hitchens who is a paragon of tolerance for other viewpoints. I mean, how do you falsify a concept like God?

Tell that to Galileo. I find it interesting that all of Mr. In the 20th century, most of the great scientists were agnostics or atheists. Can we test it, and repeat the test. Model works, until test fails and we rework the model until again test and repeat the test. Can we test it?

If we rework it, we have a schism, fundamentalists, and probably two charismatics as a result rather than a modified faith. Faith is fissionable at best, but not pliant. The point is not that religion involves faith. Duh, we all know that it does. The point being asserted by the original post is that science does not involve faith.

I think people are confused by the word faith and are assuming it can only mean faith in a God or in a religion. There are many kinds of faith but at the root level they all involve belief without proof. Alex, again — solopsism is a navel-gazing exercise for new philosophy majors. Science has no truck with meaning. Forced Galileo to recant helioscentrism, banned his book, and placed him under house arrest for his correct scientific deductions?

Tortured and executed thousands of innocents under bogus charges of witchcraft, despite there being no real evidence of their guilt? Gave us the Spanish Inquisition and several thousand more people tortured and burned at the stake for ridiculous religious reasons? Similar developments occurred in other religions. This approach, while it tended to temporarily stabilize doctrine, was also inclined toward making philosophical and scientific orthodoxy less open to correction, as accepted philosophy became the religiously sanctioned science.

Observation and theory became subordinate to dogma. In Europe, scientists and scholars of the Enlightenment responded to such restrictions with increasing skepticism. Well, you are correct in one aspect: The fine difference is what makes up thumping on tomes. The scientific revolution began in four places and times: It petered out in all of them except one — midieval Europe. The midieval Christians had come up with the doctrine of secondary causation — that God created a nature that could bring things to pass on its own, without constant divine intervention.

That, and the belief in an orderly universe ruled by laws given by a law-maker, were what permitted modern science to succeed. In ancient Greece, nature was viewed as capricious — plants, animals, the Earth, the sky were alive, and could do things at any moment for any reason.

The Earth was not an orderly place. And in discussing nature, Greek science held that you must proceed from first principles according to pure logic — NOT consult the evidence. Experiment was work, and work was fit only for slaves. In the middle east, secondary causation was explicitly rejected. The pen moves, wrote one Arab philosopher, because Allah moves it, and the ink appears on the page because Allah puts it there — the two things are not connected; they only seem to be. With a philosophy like that, empirical science was stillborn. In China, experiment was considered a novelty, a novelty was a bad thing — the only learning worth having was knowledge of the classics, and if you had that, you could reason out any conclusion you needed about nature or anything else.

So yes, the Christian worldview was what permitted modern science to arise, and the elimination of the Christian worldview will eventually take science with it. Once the facts are bent to fit the conclusion, science per se is doomed. Then I guess the ancient Aztec worship of Huitzilopochtli Hummingbird of the South must have been science then:. Rip out hearts of 5, victims on steps of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan.

Sun comes up next morning. Rip out hearts of 5, victims including some captured Spanish conquistadors who died screaming. Formal methods makes assumptions, empirical does not: Pretty much all we can say there has been summed up here — dualism is not an option, solipsism is unparsimonious, and religious views are either falsified or improbable. Which kind of sucks, because platonism sounds like another faith. I specified the Christian worldview of the middle ages, did I not? If you check — i. Intellectuals of the middle ages did not believe in witchcraft.

Thus a book like De Tonitruorum, arguing against the popular superstition that witches could affect the weather. Witch burning was a popular, bottom-up mass movement, which swept the professors out of the way. Do you understand why a belief in witchcraft which had been rejected during the middle ages might suddenly be embraced during the Renaissance?

Can you think of anything which changed? What AIG seem to be relying on is the fallacy that assumptions must be self-confirming: That sort of thing can work in mathematics change the axioms and you get a different self-consistent system but the real world hurts your toe no matter what you are believing when you stub it. Then I guess the ancient Aztec worship of Huitzilopochtli Hummingbird of the South must have been science then: Levenson also neglects to mention many of the French scientists of the 18th century who were not particularly religious.

Whatever real is… If the universe is not real, then neither science nor religion matter. In any case, one need not assume that the universe is real to carry on with science. If the universe is not relevant, then neither science nor religion matter. The statement is also factually incorrect because the universe is clearly worth worrying about simply BECAUSE some people do worry about it.

No, the scientific method would detect a change in the rules. In fact, the scientific method has SOUGHT changes in the rules, such as a changing speed of light, to explain some facets of the universe. And even though that turned out to be a dead-end, it was considered as an hypothesis, tested by experiment, and discarded.

Science may PREDICT that the rules of the universe as they are today are the same as yesterday and will be the same tomorrow, but that is not assumed. On which faith is science based? You have shown no evidence that this claim is true, and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. I think I said this on another thread. My five senses are sufficient to find out all the data I need about the universe. Now, you might use that assumption to go off and study the workings of the eye, ear, etc.

Your conclusions would be dependent on that assumption in mathematical terms your theorems would depend on your axiom. Well, now your research results become your new axiom but they were proven assuming axiom 3. Your new axiom proves the old axiom 3 which is essentially circularity. So if all assertions in the system are provable from within the system then all arguments within the system become circular.

There is no other basis for believing them. Always take everything personally. I saved their comments for about a week, then re-posted the entire thread in a message only editing was to remove details, e. He just said test the model to see if it works and it does in the Aztec case. Is there a control when we formulate our theories about dark energy, dark matter, etc.? What is the control when we dig up a dinosaur bone and theorize about what species it belongs to? This also corresponded to a period of increased religious tolerance and decreased influence of religion on society.

Deism became particularly popular during this era. Overall the middle ages, although not devoid of scientific progress, produced considerably little scientific progress compared to the renaissance, age of reason, age of enlightenment, and the modern era that followed. Each produced considerably more progress than the previous, and for the most part each having less overall influence of religion on society and increased religious tolerance and diversity. The scientific revolution was a long process, but not that long. Most would place its beginnings at the 16th century.

However we cut the cake, religion and especially Abrahamic religions had very little to do with empirical science. They mostly suppressed it, as knowledge is dangerous to faith and new knowledge is dangerous to an existing societal order. Instead of relying on formal models they developed a method and then applied it exhaustively in an empirical fashion. Quite like scientists may choose to do today at times. On the contrary, trying to learn more I find this:. More recent historians have questioned political and cultural explanations and have focused more on economic causes.

Their faith makes them believe there is an association; testing it would be stabbing somebody at midnight does the stabbing really cause the sunrise? And the Aztecs were not conducting expereiments. They were following their religion. When the Spanish came, the Conquistadors were met by Aztecs weilding automatic weaponry. The Aztecs went on to conquer the world and a couple thousand other parallels before being stopped.

They had a facade religion, and even a serpent god that they built themselves. However, granting its factual status which I am in no position to refute , it does not lead in my mind to the conclusion that science owes a debt to Christianity in general, but rather to some specific Christians who were open to reason and empirical evidence. To this day there are professed Christians who are quite hostile to science yourself not among them , so it is hard for me to accept that science gained a critical mass of acceptance at a time and place where Christianity dominated due to the innate benificience of Christianity rather than as an historical accident.

A theory and the facts that it contains by its predictions are circular if it is complete. Going full circle back to the argument that which makes observational science work is that it … is observed to work. So maybe anthropic principles tell us the correct physics because they too work by observations, avoiding the formal dilemma. Science insetad is getting up in the morning and shaking that stack.

Why do you think Einstein wondered about people in elevators, on trains, and in spaceships? Why wonder about that? Faith would say you see the same thing. Science asks and tests. Science is not faith. It might be based on the shared assumption that things exist, but at that point it ceases worrying.

Paralyzation through endless navel-gazing is not going to get you that grant or cure polio. How is it not a test? The observed result agrees with the prediction. Now, you may say they are obligated to try all sorts of actions to see what the result is in each case, but why should they bother to as long as their model accurately predicts what will happen? Next time you attend wherever, ask if you can perform some experiments like drinking the font of whatever, or reversing the ceremony.

See what it gets you. Not that my absent metaphysics care, but I would sleep better at night…. I find your comment that a Christian worldview, particularly that of medieval Europe, made modern science possible and is essential for it to continue rather perplexing. Modern science is the collection and incorporation of all scientific discovery since humans first made observations.

It is built on past discoveries and moves forward regardless of any particular religious worldview. You mentioned scientific revolutions in areas outside of medieval Europe. Take, for example, rocketry. This field would not have been possible without the scientific work undertaken by non-Christian China and their discovery and development of gunpowder. You claim that scientific revolutions petered out in the dark ages middle east, China and ancient Greece, but did not in medieval Europe. Actually, scientific discovery never really flourished in Europe until the Renaissance, when a totalitarian control over knowledge by the Christian church gave way to free inquiry and acceptance that the individual actually mattered.

Mediveal Christians destroyed a hell of a lot of knowledge that did not fit with their worldview or threatened their control. Your claim regarding ancient Greece and their view that experimentation is work and work is only fit for slaves is false, in some degree. Experimentation led to the observation that the Earth is, in fact, round.

Further, the view that nature was chaotic likely was a result of a young grasp of scientific knowledge about the world, one that we have now, though still limited. As for China, the squashing of novel experiment [which did not directly benefit those in power] may have arisen from a dogmatic reverence for the classics.

A similar phenomenon can be seen in the Bible literalists of today: Also, that bursts of scientific discovery occur and will continue the world over, until they are stopped and suppressed by dogma and totalitarianism. And yes, we do constantly test Einstein, and refine the measurements for the actual effect to check his calculations.

This only works if you are using a deductive argument and not an inductive one. A deductive argument starts from initial premises and using formal rules draws conclusions based on those premises. If science was based on that sort of system than using the conclusions to prove the premises would indeed be circular. But science does not use deductive logic, it does not use proofs and it does not use premises. Evidence can never prove a given conclusion or disprove it if you are willing to get really picky , it can only increase or decrease its likelihood of being correct. In this case using something assumed initially as evidence to support that assumption is valid in some cases.

For instance, to use your example if our five senses were not sufficient to learn about the universe then there would be situations which are five senses are not sufficient. We have numerous such examples, for instance seeing outside of the visible spectrum, so we developed mechanisms to expand our senses. To give a more concrete example, evidence indicated communicable diseases were real but were being causes by something invisible to our senses. Expansions of our senses microscopes initially allowed us to observe these organisms directly.

We have been very successful at determining when our existing sensing capabilities are too limited to answer certain questions and have then gone about expanding our sensing capabilities. Space telescopes like Hubble are a great example. If there were things that were fundamentally inaccessible to our senses no matter how were to expand them then we should be able to detect that by means of evidence we cannot collect. And we do that all the time. We know that we cannot directly observed particular events prior to a certain point for instance we cannot directly observe the extinction of the dinosaurs.

We know that we cannot simultaneously measure the velocity and position of a particle past a certain resolution for both. We know we cannot directly observe the behavior of animals for which no DNA is left. We know we cannot observe events that have not happened yet. So the problem you describe is not at all a concern for inductive logic since it does not rely on premises, only evidence, and it does not rely on proofs, only probabilities. According to the terms of the treaty, the United States acquired Florida and, in exchange, renounced all claims to Texas.

Andrew Jackson formally took control of Florida from Spanish authorities on July 17, at Pensacola. Speaking scientifically, that would mean finding the T. I thought observations, facts, whatever you want to call them stand by themselves. They are not provable from the theory as far as I know. I want to second Jolly Blogger and Dr. You have one too many assumptions, Phil. Imagine we lived in a universe in which the law of gravity had a random element. If I built a catapult to carefully launch an object with the same force every time, the height and distance it would travel would vary every time in an unpredictable fashion.

In this example, I am obviously glossing over the fact that life would be likely to arise or exist long in such a universe…. The only assumption of science is that the observations I make have a direct albeit imperfect relationship to reality. Obviously, a very early and obvious conclusion of science in the universe we actually live in is that it IS a universe of rules. Funny you always come up with absurd extremes, but really never argue a point. To be fair he is arguing the main point of this thread: Classifying dinosaur bones makes many assumptions.

Finding the T rex bone or, rather, the fact that the T rex bone exists provides evidence for natural selection specifically because it fits with the predictions made by natural selection. Hence the circularity I think that is what he meant. Perhaps the same place as: Anyway, take a look at http: Of course if one professor says it then it obviously must be true, right? No professor has ever been wrong before, right? No need to actually deal with the arguments or evidence put forth in these comments and countless others, just citing one professor is enough.

You are using the standard equivocation fallacy. We are talking about faith in a specific sense, that is accepting something without or directly contrary to the evidence. In fact Phil specifically states this right up front:. Yet you ignore this, ignore the definition used by everyone else here. Instead you pick a definition that, in the manner you are using it, everything must be faith. That being said, I am sure you have met individual scientists or groups of scientists that seem to latch onto particular paradigms pretty damn hard.

You almost have to wait for the old guard to die off before the new models can start making progress.

Not only that, I would argue that ANY system of human thought, whether it be science, religion, mathematics, etc. Through science, we observe a phenomenon, make a guess as to how that works, make a prediction based on the evidence, then test our prediction against more evidence. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

You seem to really like asking questions that have already been answered, especially questions that are answered in the sentence after the one you quote. And who gave you the right to pick which dictionary we are using? How about the American Heritage Dictionary:. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

See Synonyms at belief, trust. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: The body of dogma of a religion: A set of principles or beliefs. Language is created by man and is used under the assumption that when it is communicated to another person they are properly relayed the information that was intended to be conveyed. To say we know exactly what they are saying is to have faith that we can comprehend language.

So, while I see him making some argument about the role of human perception in science… he could just as well be telling us a delicious recipe for cookies… and we are just biased and driven to believe otherwise. Which is… an axiom. It is not an axiom in the conventional sense because it is backed up by evidence. There are no known instances where the universe does not obey rules, no matter how closely or how broadly we look at the universe.

An axiom has no evidence behind it, it is a basic rule on which a system is built. That the universe follows rules is a basic rule on which science is built, but it is also backed up by evidence. I think he got it exactly right the first time. The BA really nailed it on this one. Maybe God set up the photons from stars to make it look like the universe is billions of years old when in fact it was created only a few millennia ago. The point is that we only make progress if we assume that the universe is rational.

We will never be able to disprove the existence of miracles or magic, but we do know that belief in supernatural causes is of no help when trying to make a toaster, or in making predictions about quantum tunneling in nuclei. What I see in many thumpers is that they have zero tolerance for the unknown. At that point, the conversation is over. Any further discussion is disrespecting their religious beliefs. And has the same value as a religion!!!! Never trust a French philosopher. And Marxism is fashionable 19th century humbug.

Never trust a German philosopher. There is randomness in the Universe, of course: But that randomness still follows rules. As far as solipsism goes, feh. If you cannot study it, and it has no evidence or effect, then how is that any different than it not existing? Local effects can be counted for in observations like light aberration, parallax, the fact that we live in a spiral galaxy, and so on.

We need only have that as a hypothesis. If the universe did not follow any rules that hypothesis could be flushed down the drain. It is not faith, it is tests that have shown this to be so. Many wild ideas have been tested and failed, and abandoned. Others have passes the tests repeatably. Evolution, math, physics have many theories that have passes every test thrown at them. If anyone doubts the tests, they only need to test it themselves.

The basic theories have been doubted, and retested. That is the ONLY reason that these theories are held in such high regard. It seems odd that the people who will doubt so much proof, refuse to doubt their own faith. Doubt is the basis of advancement in science, other world views only pay it lip service. I was going to bring it up but I have been severely chastised for equating science to a formal system even though I believe there are close similarities.

Of course, Godel said that given any formal system there are true statements that are unprovable from within the system. It supports my position but I am forbidden from using it. It might be real. It might be unreal. If I can devise a test to tell, I test this and mark it done. Just to operate according to a set of rules. I always find spelling and grammar errors after hitting submit! My five senses … are sufficient to find out all the data I need about the universe.

My brain and senses can easily be tricked. So tests are designed to determine when that is occurring. In fact, there is a whole branch of science that deals with that. We devise a test to see if we can may B happen without A. We devise a test to see if A always precedes B. But how is that an assumption. If we have error bars needed to include all the data, then we know we need to do more research. Even the speed of light is constantly retested to refine the accuracy. Wholeheartedly and without reservation. None of any assumption is required to be believed with out proof.

Now on the initial assumption, we work with it as a basis, but we are testing that assumption all the time. Any time we find something that invalidates that assumption, we will work to find out why and refine our base precept. That would be absurd. Except the Aztec Priest would never test that assertion to see if it is true.

Possibly as an undergrad. They better not in real research! But again, that is not an assumption. Or were you just trying to be silly. I never can tell with sophists. Very late to add to this thread, but Ed Minchau, you must have missed T. Definition 2 is acceptable to me. I forget where you stand. If so then it seems to contradict the initial post which talked about an assumption — which is nothing but a proposition taken on faith as defined in definition 2.

Care to post some referers, Phil? I guess this just proves Arthur Clark had a point. In this case we have a classic example of technology too advanced to be seen as anything other than magic, to most folk,,,I guess this also applies to the Scientifc Method. That is the time the Catholic Church and its Popes became over-bloated with jewels. The whole point is that there is evidence that the universe follows rules. Therefor it does not follow that definition, which requires that there not be evidence.

I did want to go back to something BlackCat posted which was that science is percent inductive. I think there are two phases to science: Newton went out and collected data and tried to come up with a theory that accounted for it. That part of the process is indeed inductive. It involves a collection of observations, anything from the apple falling on his head probably an apocryphal story , observations of the moon, sun, and planets.

So he uses it to come up with the equation: The next part is model usage which is not inductive, but rather deductive. You use the model to make predictions. For example, where will Mars be in the sky on January 1st, ? Well, you can plug in a few parameters like the semi-major axis, eccentricity, position on some previous date, etc.

Now to be sure, phase 1 and phase 2 are locked in a loop. Observations are compared with predictions from phase 2 and any discrepancies can be used to tune the model developed in phase 1. But to say that science has no deductive logic to it at all is just not true. And as such, it should adhere to the same restrictions as any logical formal system insofar as its deductions are concerned. That would be a logical contradiction of the deductive system.

So having the deductive part of things causes certain restrictions in the valid predictions. You folks are getting mighty slippery to pin down. In short, assuming regularity in the universe is bad philosophy but necessary of science. This, to me, is the pivotal difference between science and religious faith not science and faith-without-the-religion. Science is pragmatic and draconian and wonderful and rational this way. Religion is the very opposite. Once again, you take a quote out of context and completely ignore the rest of the post which directly deals with what you said.

Phil does say this, but then goes on to say this just two paragraphs later:. I laughed out loud. You may do so at your whim. However, it will be thoroughly trounced as irrelevant to the current discussion. The universe, unlike logic and mathematics, is not an abstract invention of man designed to model aspects of the universe. It IS the universe. The universe does not attempt to describe itself using man made rules of logic and mathematics! Short of replicating the entirety of all existence, Science by definition will always be incomplete. The initial observation is a sensory perception.

The prediction is a foretelling of a future sensory perception. You compare the predicted sensory perception versus the actual sensory perception. Everything is based on sensory data. You are still assuming my assumption 3 which is that your senses are adequate and giving you good data.

1. Is science faith-based? - Bad Astronomy : Bad Astronomy.
2. Together After Three Months: A Passionate and Romantic Erotica Story.
3. Bad Astronomy?
4. Crow 3: Tears of Blood (A Crow Western).
5. Mommy, Where Do All the Flowers Come From??
6. Hope, Inspiration and Wisdom: A Treasury of Thoughts on Coping with Kidney Disease.

If the prediction says that such and such object will be straight ahead, but there is something screwed up with your vision so that an object at an angle of 15 degrees appears to be straight ahead, then your observation will agree perfectly with the prediction, even though the real object is off by 15 degrees.

Your theory will be verified even though it is false. The deductive part of science is indeed a system of logic. The proof for this is that it is forbidden to make predictions that are logical contradictions. A prediction may NOT be like one the following:. The earth rotates counterclockwise as seen from Polaris and it also rotates clockwise as seen from Polaris. The average density of the earth is 5. I never claimed that science was a religion or equivalent to religion. I never claimed that faith and Faith were the same anyway. So the reliability of many dating systems are based on more faith than facts.

Try reading the dada and surrealist manifestoes. We can prove things with our mysteries—religion cannot say the same. It is not an assumption. If our senses were giving us bad data then information based on this data would be wrong and so any predictions based off of it would be false. Even if our senses were somehow wrong that does not explain why we can move single atoms around with scanning tunneling microscopes. The only way all the predictions could be right yet our senses be giving us completely wrong information is for the universe to be specifically set up to give the same results as if our senses were correct.

We are getting back into Matrix territory with that. That is why you compare your results to those of other people. If their vision is messed up in the same way then we would know because people would be unable to agree on the location of the object. If they move these intersection points will move as well instead of staying stationary at the target. If we add a sound source to the object our hearing must also be off in the same manner. If the object hits us in the head it will hit us on the side of the head not on the front. If we add a radio beacon to the object the tracking device would tell us it is 15 degrees off to the side.

If the object is metal and we aim a directional microwave transmitter at it the directional transmitter would only cause a reflection if it was straight ahead.

Покупки по категориям

There are numerous inconsistencies that would be evident if our visual perception was off by 15 degrees to the right. What would have to be the case is that our wrong perception fluctuates in such a way that when a group of people are looking at an object their perceived directions all intersect at a single point. These perceptions would have to change so that no matter how they move they all remain intersecting at the same, wrong point.

It would have to be that our movements and other senses are also off by the same amount and also that we somehow miss obvious, constant medical problems due to always walking funny. It would require that all our instruments are off in the same way, and that the amount and direction they are off is perfectly tuned to the constantly changing discrepancy of the one using it. If multiple people are using it they must somehow get different readings from the same device. The list of absurdities goes on and on. At a certain point you have to say that we have tested it enough, the evidence supports the conclusion that what we perceive as straight ahead is most likely fairly close to what is really straight ahead.

Yeah, and I think the server is on fire, too. Whatever the method of understanding this world is, they are all based on some form of faith. If I have to choose which method to use to understand this world, I would choose scientific method. Religion, however, is as dead as astrology or alchemy. Now the creationists start coming out. First, evolution does not require dating methods period.

It can be directly observed in the lab. Second, data systems are not trusted to be just as valid. This has been confirmed by comparing dating systems based on totally unrelated principles like ice cores, carbon, and tree rings. Some dating methods, particularly those that look very far in the past, have built-in checks. If there was a problem with the dating method then the data would not be self-consistent. Other methods, if there were a problem, would require fundamental changes in the nature of the universe which would be easily detectable.

Further, if there were discrepancies then the our extremely sensitive analysis of the principles underlying these events like radioactive decay would have detected changes over time. So in order for these techniques to be wrong then both very closely related and very distantly related techniques must all be changing in completely different manners that still somehow always give the same wrong dates and those changes must not have affected very similar physical processes and these changes must have stopped just before we developed the technology needed to detect the changes.

Forgive me if I consider that just a tad improbable. You then go into a fair amount of detail of the scientific method but offer no reason why this denies faith. This Red Herring argument only prove there is, currently, an established method for doing scientific research. The concept of science suffers from Argumentum ad Verecundiam; science itself cannot be an authority only those working within science. I understand this may sound like splinting hairs but an argument which states science is not faith based cannot, therefore, say science is faith based because science says so.

Again, the universe obeys rules and the scientific community placed their faith in the scientific method to understand those laws, but this offers no tangible evidence for your argument. Science does stem directly from religion, but hardly an evolution of it. Until the 19th century learned individuals used science to understand the world better, and thus God. The law of gravity is itself the law of gravity untampered, unmovable by sentient life. One, working within those rules; two, as being the source of those rules capable of negating them entirely. This website is a bunch of scientists who have a faith.

So what is wrong with saying God set in place all of these laws that make up the Universe and then gave us the knowledge and ability to unravel his creation and figure out why things work the way they do? Sure some people might disagree, but I think in this way, faith and science can be related to each other. Science is based on faith. Science, as you stated, is based on the assumption that the universe obeys certain laws. That is a very vague way of saying that the universe has some kind of uniformity about it. That is, when you throw a ball up in the air, it comes back down.

When you stub your toe, it hurrts. Science would be impossible if there were no unifimity. Philosophers call it the uniformity of nature and skeptic and philosophical great, David Hume, noted that this uniformity what Hume called induction has no rational warrant. Hume was well aware that we all assume that nature is uniform. That is, based on our past experiences we make inferences to the unknown future. If I stub my toe, it hurts and I try not to stub my toe again. But Hume also noted that we have no rational basis for making such an inference.

The reason for this is because to say that tomorrow will be like today because the past was like today is to beg the question. When you beg the question viciously you argue in a circle and the conclusion assumes the premise in question. It is an error in reasoning. Well, hence it is with the uniformity of nature also called the problem of induction.

This may sound silly to the average reader because of ignorance of the true problem , but philosophers have struggled with providing a rational justification for induction for centuries and it is a huge problem in philosophical circles. The point here is that, contrary to your claims, while science may be evidentiary in nature, the basis of all of science is in fact faith based. You have no rational warrant to assume that tomorrow when you stub your toe that it will not be the greatest feeling ever!

You may respond and say that the probabibilty is high that tomorrow will be like today but a quick reflection reveals that this is just as question begging. When you use probability, you are assuming the past event to make an inference into the future, i. Yeppers, you have faith. We all have faith, some are just honest enough to admit it.

They are rank ideologues, as bad as any fanatic. Scientists are constantly having to change their definition of the rules. Which is fine, except many people blindly accept whatever rules they were taught as the pardon the pun gospel truth. Hence, we have the Anthrogenic Global Warming believers who take theories adn see whatever they want in the tea leaves of the weather. The universe is a lot stranger and harder to pin down than we thought. We are finding this out as we go along. So called science believers have a tendency to undermine their own arguments by behaving like religious followers.

Because in my 50 years on this earth I have seen scientists change their stories a lot. There is no real conflict between religion and science. To many engineers and scientists I know, science studies the universe around us. To say that a scientist is held back by faith is not correct. Faith usually makes a better person and that can play an important role in the quality of a persons life and work. For many, its a motivating factor -to understand the universe God built.

One thing that this blog and all of the comments show is that there are lots of extremists in the faith and scientific camps. The problem is that the AiG crowd also has to make the assumption that the universe follows rules. They have to assume the universe follows rules. They just make the additional assumption that there is a being that is not bound by those rules, and then add a whole heap of other assumptions as well.

But in the end they must make the same assumption consciously or unconsciously that science makes in order to even begin to function in the world. You should read more. Living and breathing requires presuppositions. Try starting with Descartes. Your attempt to distill hundreds of years of thought into a blog post is admirable. Unfortunately, you are as smart as the people you ridicule.

To quote Philip K. Dick who was a complete nut: Science does involve an element of faith. The faith involved is the faith in your senses. You believe that they do not lie, be they your sight, hearing, or your electron microscope space telescope may be more appropriate here: You believe that the data they relay to your consciousness is reliable. You believe you are not living in a perfect reality simulation ala the Matrix. There is no way to prove or disprove this, and thus we take as an article of faith that what we observe IS in fact reality. Now, given that first assumption everything Phil said follows.

If your senses are truthful then you can do math and get everything from your basic machines to LCD TVs to space probes. If we assume that reality is real, then no other leaps of faith are necessary given time to observe and apply logic. However, we still must take on faith that reality is real because there is no way to prove or disprove this postulate. The point here is that we assume we exist. We take this as an article of faith and build upon it. Given that assumption, all else falls into place.

However, there is also a sense in which much of what a scientist believes may have been taken on faith. But how do we learn those rules? We could, in principle, perform the experiments by which other scientists have inferred them. But we do not. We accept the results as reported and we often accept the interpretation put on them by those other scientists. In other words, when we apply rules that were inferred by others, we are doing so without having independently confirmed them ourselves.

This strikes me as an acceptance of the validity of the rule based on a faith that the scientists reporting the rule have behaved responsibly. This does not strike me as being all that different from the way one acquires beliefs in a religion-based context. You accept what you are told by someone who you believe. The real issue for a thinking person is how one decides which authorities are to be believed and which are less credible.

For me, those who have been pursuing the methodologies of science are the ones who deserve the most credibility; but we must remain wary of those who would cloak themselves with the appearance of science while trying to delude us. Someone above stated that induction was an assumption of science — it is not.

Induction has since long been replaced by the method of hypothesis and deduction as well as falsifiability. As the blog post mentions, David Hume discussed causality and that we cannot directly experience it, thus we cannot rely on induction to generalize observations to principles or rules. Solipsism is simply rejected by many. See Wikipedia for an in-depth discussion of solipsism. Contrary to religion that just gathers inconsistencies, science appears to evolve through paradigm shifts that occur when previous theories have turned out to be burdened by too much non-supporting evidence and a new set of theories take their place.

In the end, we cannot know for sure whether God does, or does not exist. Logically, agnosticism is where you end up. Religion should be a personal matter, you cannot generalize based on it. This argument is very weak. That is, the method of making predictions and allowing science to be revised when those predictions fail to materialize is the lone path to truth.

Unfortunately, positivism has been dismissed by virtually all Philosophers of Science since then. There are a number of issues with it. For example, a philosopher named Lakatos observed that there really is no objective reality we can confirm outside our perceptions of it: Thomas Kuhn further observed that the revision of scientific theory has more to do with the culture and posturing of scientists of the moment than it does with anything else.

I am not scholarly enough to enumerate all of the reasons why Positivism is considered debunked, but if you are interested any good book or course on the Philosophy of science with excerpts from those Philosophers mentioned should provide a great overview on modern thinking. By the way — I have many friends which are scientists. Most have not studied the Philosophy of Science…many fall into the trap of the author and subscribe to some sort of simplified Positivism. I myself believe in science, it is a faith-system that has served me too well to abandon.

Most astronomy and biology is done with electronics these days. She will still be able to collect and interpret the data. Nobody can see into the infra-red and ultra-violet. In addition to bridal and specialty cakes, they make everyday bakery items like flaky croissants, tea biscuits, and even an array of cookies and pies. Their dipped chocolate Florentine cookies, mini fruit tarts, and loaded cream puffs are all bursting with flavor and are beautifully presented.

Cruelty-free pastries never tasted so sweet! We can support any bakery that believes in being heavy on the butter. Decadent cheesecakes topped with fruit, lattice apple pies, and fruit turnovers are just some of the staple treats you can enjoy from this year-old bakery. If you are in the mood for a classic cannoli, filled with chocolate or vanilla cream or ricotta with chocolate chips and citron, you have to stop by Termini Brothers in Philadelphia. As one of the original Italian bakeries in the area, Termini Brothers offers plenty of other traditional sweets like pignoli cookies and flaky sfogliatelle.

Each day, this must-try pastry shop delights customers with daily specials on their French macarons, tarts, and cookies in a wide range of seasonal flavors. Chocolate bonbons are even making an appearance soon, adding only to the already impressive pastry menu. Hankering for a classic Cuban dessert? They also offer specialty Cuban bread and classic French baguettes for those who want to skip the sweets. In what was once a hardware warehouse in downtown Franklin, Merridee Erickson opened her bakery in after three years of selling her baked goods from her log cabin in nearby Fairview.

Purify My Heart - Deep Prayer Music - Meditation Music - Worship Music - Create In Me A Clean Heart

From sweet breads to cookies to brownies, this classic Southern bakery also serves a full breakfast, lunch, dinner, and catering menu highlighting their specialty baked goods. We also cannot ignore their delicious raised doughnuts, which come in both classic and adventurous flavors like the turtle doughnut, made with caramel chocolate and pecans.

He opened a storefront in Warrenton, Virginia and sells seasonal pies, jams, and cookies of the day. Seven Stars Bakery in Providence, R. The baked goods are made with quality ingredients like local eggs, European-style butter, unbleached flours, and organic whole grains. The bakery has a daily selection of breads and rotating weekly specials, like cranberry walnut and anadama bread. In addition to the breads, try their seasonal bread pudding or their anise biscotti. Their assorted pastry specialties, like white chocolate mousse tulips and the ricotta cheese swans, will make any party pop.

They bake throughout the day, so you might get lucky and get a chocolate praline roll or drop biscuit with lemon curd minutes after it has left the oven. Breads and sweets vary on a day-to-day basis, but the selections range from season sweets like pumpkin tarts and apple puff pastries to everyday goods like classic baguettes. Emmaus Bakery , which opened in , bakes Pennsylvania Dutch-style sweets that are simple but consistently delicious. Locals go for their cinnamon swirl doughnuts, bear claws, and peanut butter buns.

Try their specialty Vienna bread, or their fasnacht , a Pennsylvania Dutch Country potato-dough doughnut made on Fasnacht Day, otherwise known as Fat Tuesday. The Denver Bread Company got its start in with the intention of selling bread baked by hand with natural ingredients. The bakery has more than 20 different kinds of focaccia on its menu. Look out for specialties like the garlic twist bread made from unbleached bread flour, organic whole rye, salt, yeast, and water, lightly brushed with an egg wash and coated with minced garlic before baking.

Fresh pastries like Key lime tarts and napoleons come fresh out of the oven during the day, and for those who want a filling savory snack, their popular ham or chicken croquettes may do the trick. Liliha is known for its coco puff, which debuted in without much success, but made a comeback in when now-retired baker Kame Ikemura tweaked the recipe. The coco puff is filled with chocolate pudding and topped with Hawaiian Chantilly cream.

You can also pick up traditional raised doughnuts, pineapple cakes, brioche rolls, and assorted Danishes. Try their cinnamon elephant ears or fruit foldovers for that taste of home everyone craves from a baked good. And be sure to pick up some cinnamon apple raisin bread on the way home. Salty Tart is one of those bakeries that managed to master savory and sweet with unmatched finesse. The bakery also sells a twice-baked ham and cheese croissant full of buttery, cheesy goodness that hits the spot on a cold winter day.

The cupcakes here are as simple and natural as their ingredients. Their desserts are top-quality and diverse with options like whoopie pies, cake balls, and chocolates to appease everyone in search of something sweet. This sweet cupcakery will have you smiling after one bite. Sweet by Holly bakes over 30 flavors daily. Their array of cakes, award-winning cupcakes, and breakfast pastries make them beloved by all.

Try their traditional apple pie or branch out with a banana chocolate chip cake for a comforting dessert that will surely sweeten your day. Whether you are looking for a bite-size beauty or a full-size feast, SusieCakes believes in baking quality cupcakes for all taste buds. From a young age, he was fascinated by confections and began studying to be a pastry chef at the tender age of He made his way to the Boston area in , working at The Ritz and opened his bakery in In addition to elaborate cakes, he today produces fine pastries that are decadent and indulgent; try the petite strawberry Grande Mariner Square or chocolate or vanilla cannoli for an exquisite taste of dessert.

Imagine a root beer float cupcake so convincing that it has its own straw. That's the level of attention the Jones Bros. Cupcakes gives to each and every cupcake and pastry that comes out of the oven. It consists of chocolate root beer cake with vanilla bean icing, root beer ganache drizzle, and a chocolate straw.

Specializing in grand cakes, this bakery also specializes in pastries which all hail from family recipes and are melt-in-your-mouth delicious. If you are looking for a unique bakery experience with a touch of worldly flair, head to Dessert Club, ChikaLicious. They are also extremely passionate about Japanese culture and cuisine and share their passion through an array of classes they host at the shop. With a solid spread of cake flavors and an impressive cake gallery to boot, this bakery can supply impressive, personalized treats for any special celebration.

A bakery that serves booze? Buzz Bakery , located in Alexandria, Virginia, is built on the simple belief in quality, tasty products. Afterwards, grab a brew or a glass of wine and relax with your dessert. This Brooklyn-based bakeshop embraces the decadence its name implies.

Confections like blueberry frosting-topped banana cake or maple-pecan chocolate cake will instantly convince you of that. Butter Lane also dabbles in other sweets, like fudgy brownies and seasonal doughnuts we hope you can catch the pumpkin spice ones. With cupcakes available in three sizes, this Kansas City cupcakery and bakery believes in serving sweets that are both delicious and beautiful.

Their pixie pies, in a variety of flavors such as French silk and coconut cream, are a particularly indulgent treat. They offer a variety of seasonal t-ring pastries and specialize in creating gorgeous wedding cakes and artisanal cupcakes. But you cannot overlook the cookies! Macrina casera bread complements every meal, and their popular rustic potato bread comes in loaves, rolls, and baguette forms. Their other pastries, like the sugar bun and their orange hazelnut pinwheels, further prove their baking prowess. This Brooklyn-based bakery, which also has a location in Manhattan, features breads and pastries that represent the wide range of baking styles across America.

Their original items, like brooksters — deep, dark, brownie-based tarts filled with chocolate chunk cookie batter — are made with a rigorous attention to detail and a lot of passion. Known for their bolillos, a Mexican variation on the French baguette, and for a wide variety of tres leches cakes, El Bolillo Bakery has become a local Texas spot for Mexican-style baked goods.