Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

Let us take the Big Bang as an example.

Back in 1902, Einstein's version of the Universe in General Relativity was static - neither growing nor shrinking in time, and having always existed and always would exist. In 1922 and 1923, Edwin Hubble showed that the Milky Way was not the whole of the Universe, that there were other galaxies outside our own.

In 1927 Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître put forth a model of an expanding universe, based on Einstein's equations. Einstein admitted the math was good, but had issues with the non-static result. In 1929, observations by Edwin Hubble (because of how things got names, a lot of people don't realize the initial theory was Lemaître's, not Hubble's) backed up Lemaître's theory. For many years, there was a great deal of arguing over this - many, including Einstein, were not comfortable with the idea of an expanding Universe, thought Einstein actually encouraged Lemaître to keep working on the theory. In 1948, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman worked out that if the Universe had once been a small, dense, hot ball, there would be some leftover background radiation to the Universe. The existence of this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson at the Crawford Hill location of Bell Telephone Laboratories in Holmdel Township, New Jersey (scooping several other groups in so doing).

Since then, the model has been updated several times over.

This is pretty much the poster child for science overall *not* making assumptions. Each step of the development of the model has been accompanied by wrangling, lots of math, and experimental verification, rather than flat assumption of correctness. Yes, today is it taken as likely the best guess we have as to how the Universe came to be - though it is understood there's still stuff about it we don't know. But, there are still a couple of competing theories out there - they either make predictions that don't match observations nearly as well as Big Bang does, or are actually non-falsifiable (either practically of the moment, or outright theoretically).

I get that it wasn't a flat assumption. I'm not saying that. However, assumption is there. It was assumed by Einstein that due to his math, the universe was constant and not moving. It was then assumed by the others due to their math that it was moving. It was then assumed by Herman that there would be radiation if the universe began as a small mass. The next assumption is bolded above. The existence of radiation was discovered. Whether it was "this" radiation or some other radiation isn't known, but is assumed to be from the big bang.

I'm not disputing that the assumptions of science aren't grounded in math and other more solid approaches to the blind faith of religion, or that those assumptions are not subject to challenge and change. That's a stark difference from religious assumptions. However, they are still assumptions.

 

[Umbran]

It was assumed by Einstein that due to his math, the universe was constant and not moving.

Actually, no it wasn't!

Einstein's original formulation could allow for either an expending, or a static universe - the difference between them is a constant (usually called the "Cosmological constant"). He could go either way. Since the universe *as observed at the time* was constant, he chose that formulation. When given evidence that the static universe was incorrect, he resisted some, but he also did encourage the line of investigation. Eventually, he did accept the expending Universe, and the formulation that allows expansion was used for some time, with the constant left out.

Then, after Einstein passed, we discovered the rate of expansion was still increasing... and back came the constant, with a different value, and that seems to explain our Dark Energy.

It was then assumed by the others due to their math that it was moving.

Nope. Someone put forth a model where it was expanding. This is not "assumed due to their math". It was seen to be a possibility, so someone worked out the details, and it was discussed in the community at great length. Then, later, observations were made that supported the hypothesis. And more observations, and yet more, until the evidence was such that it seems a pretty good bet that's what happened.

And, as I said, there are still other theories out there.

So, I still reject your characterization of science "assuming" much of anything - we are quite capable to exploring and testing ideas without assuming them to be actually true - we design an experiment that will turn out one way if the model is accurate, and other ways if it isn't. We don't have to assume one way or another when the data will eventually tell us.

Yes, individual practitioners will sometimes have their favorites. But even then, folks (like Einstein, above) come around with data. And, science, as a collective endeavor, thrives on the differences of guesses, not on everyone assuming the same thing is correct.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.

 

[Ryujin]

Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.

How dare Starbucks fail to display that image central to Christianity; the snowflake! Yes, that was sarcasm, if there was any doubt.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Starbucks joins in on the Christian persecution.

Oyyyyyyyy vey.

 

[Kramodlog]

I guess my family is very anti-Christmas/Christian this year. We've chosen to make and eat Italian food this year. Antipasto and insalata instead eating turkey like Baby Jesus did in the manger.

 

[Maxperson]

To make matter even more bizarre. In order to accuse Starbucks of being anti-Christmas, those people had to ignore that Starbucks sells a Christmas blend, a Christmas card, and an Advent calendar.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, science builds models that work according to observation; they are called theories. If the model doesn't work well enough to properly explain/predict all the observations, science looks for a new model or a modification of the current one to better match observation. If observations can best be modelled by intelligent meddling, you can bet that will be one of the competing models science will look at.

Not really. Science is incapable of dealing with things that cannot be observed, and so doesn't generally bother. Science, for instance, is quite moot on the topic of an intelligent creator kicking everything into motion and then watching (the watch-maker deist theories). And it will forever be, so it doesn't bother.

The fundamental differences between religious beliefs and the scientific process isn't the assumptions, it is in the standard of proof & testability/falsifiability.

If a scientist's assumptions are not provable from observable, repeatable tests, they're tossed.

Religious beliefs do not face that kind of scrutiny. They don't get tossed.

That fundamental difference is why Catholicism does not teach that science and religion are incompatible: science derives from the rational testing, faith is a gift from the divine.

(See also Thomas Aquinas's teachings.)

Long term, that's probably correct. Science as a tool, in the long run, generally discards the bad and adopts the good. The problem is that people assume the long term trend in mirrored in the short term; that because it's science, it must always be moving towards the correct goal at all times. This is flatly false. Indeed, post-normal science rarely bothers with repeatable testing, sometimes discarding testing altogether because it's hard or impossible to test, yet the truthiness of the theory proposed is enough to get there (maybe with some modeling). Global warming is a great example: a rock solid, tested theory that more CO2 will, ceteris paribus, cause warming to a known amount, but then saddled with guess after guess and layered with uncertain model results to get a specific answer that hasn't be verified in the least (it's all theory). Sure, maybe it's right, but you'll never see the massive uncertainties associated with the theory presented alongside it's predictions of doom. Post-normal science.

(for the record, I fully anticipate that the coming warming will be solidly within the estimates provided by the IPCC.)

Moreover, they *cannot* be given that kind of scrutiny. If you posit an omnipotent, omniscient deity, then when dealing with a religious belief, any potential evidence contradicting the belief can be dismissed with, "That's what God wants it to look like." Religious beliefs are fundamentally non-falsifiable - there is no test or data that can disprove them because one can always, "play the God card."

To be fair, science rests on some critical assumptions no less untestable or verifiable, but that we all take for granted. That observation reveals truth. That the fundamental axioms of math are true. Etc. Sure, we have a long history of success with those assumptions, but they're still assumptions.

Science is a wonderful tool for discovery of the natural world. But it's not the only tool, nor always the best one. Sometimes it's the wrong tool entirely. Science isn't suited to determining moral questions, for instance. It's the belief that science is the only, best tool to solve all problems that's quasi-religious -- it's as unfounded as belief in God(s), but it doesn't some otherwise very bright people from doing it.

 

[Umbran]

Not really. Science is incapable of dealing with things that cannot be observed...

That is not a limit of science, but of humanity. Nobody is capable of dealing with things that cannot be observed. Or, at least, such "dealing with" cannot be demonstrated, even to yourself.

To be fair, science rests on some critical assumptions no less untestable or verifiable, but that we all take for granted. That observation reveals truth.

That's not actually a base assumption. That observation reveals truth is gleaned by science through inductive reasoning. Science is very much, "the proof is in the pudding".

That the fundamental axioms of math are true.

Again, not actually a base assumption, but more inductive reasoning. If math didn't produce results, we would not use it in science.

Science is a wonderful tool for discovery of the natural world. But it's not the only tool, nor always the best one. Sometimes it's the wrong tool entirely. Science isn't suited to determining moral questions, for instance.

Upon what do you base that assertion?

You need to be very careful with the reasoning here, in that there's a gulf between, "science isn't suited," and, "science is not yet advanced enough." Can you support the assertion that even with advances in psychology, cognitive sciences, sociology and anthropology, science will not ever be able to take on moral questions?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm not a big fan of Starbucks, but I may have to get a red cup of something before the Apocalypse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-...ping_b_8510244.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592