HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Can anyone list one conce...

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 12:44 PM

Can anyone list one concept or idea...

...for which we had a scientific explanation but have subsequently abandoned for a religious explanation, derived from a theological method of inquiry?

(Negative points for proffering a science based answer replaced by another science based answer.)

Inspired by: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=281327

52 replies, 3444 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 52 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can anyone list one concept or idea... (Original post)
NeoGreen Apr 2018 OP
PJMcK Apr 2018 #1
unblock Apr 2018 #2
Act_of_Reparation Apr 2018 #4
unblock Apr 2018 #6
Act_of_Reparation Apr 2018 #7
unblock Apr 2018 #8
Act_of_Reparation Apr 2018 #9
unblock Apr 2018 #10
Act_of_Reparation Apr 2018 #11
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
unblock Apr 2018 #12
Major Nikon Apr 2018 #17
Major Nikon Apr 2018 #16
docgee Apr 2018 #3
Cartoonist Apr 2018 #5
NeoGreen Apr 2018 #13
NeoGreen Apr 2018 #14
NeoGreen Apr 2018 #15
NeoGreen May 2018 #18
MineralMan May 2018 #19
NeoGreen May 2018 #20
trotsky May 2018 #21
NeoGreen May 2018 #22
MineralMan May 2018 #24
NeoGreen May 2018 #25
MineralMan May 2018 #27
MineralMan May 2018 #23
NeoGreen May 2018 #26
MineralMan May 2018 #28
NeoGreen May 2018 #29
zipplewrath May 2018 #30
NeoGreen May 2018 #31
zipplewrath May 2018 #32
NeoGreen May 2018 #33
NeoGreen Jul 2019 #34
guillaumeb Jul 2019 #35
uriel1972 Jul 2019 #36
NeoGreen Jul 2019 #37
NeoGreen Jul 2019 #38
guillaumeb Jul 2019 #39
NeoGreen Jul 2019 #40
AtheistCrusader Dec 2019 #44
Voltaire2 Dec 2019 #48
NeoGreen Jul 2019 #41
NeoGreen Dec 2019 #42
AtheistCrusader Dec 2019 #43
edhopper Dec 2019 #45
NeoGreen Dec 2019 #46
edhopper Dec 2019 #47
AtheistCrusader Dec 2019 #49
NeoGreen Dec 2019 #50
AtheistCrusader Dec 2019 #51
NeoGreen Feb 2020 #52

Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 12:51 PM

1. Good one!

Tip o' the hat, NeoGreen!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 12:54 PM

2. Hmm, probably something in the anti-choice area

For example, the notion that the union of two gametes is the moment at which a separate "person" arises that cannotceyhically be killed. Or, in spiritual terms, when a soul is created or enters a physical entity.

Science had a neutral explanation for the continuum of life, with various steps being mere milestones along the way in the propagation of species by means of sexual reproduction.

But the anti-choicers got fixated on the moment of conception, based largely, I think on scientific discoveries regarding dna and its significance, even though science has little to say about any ethical significance of that moment.

Yes, anti-choice was certainly a thing before Watson and crick, but scientific understanding of conception certainly has influenced the views of anti-choicers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 12:59 PM

4. I think he's talking about acceptance by experts, not the general public.

The public has abandoned plenty of science in favor of woo, but the consensus among the experts is the science is still more or less correct.

What we don't see is scientists tossing out theories and hypotheses in favor of supernatural explanations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #4)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:01 PM

6. Well, science has no process for that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #6)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:16 PM

7. Has no process for determining the best explanation for a particular phenomenon?

Gonna disagree with you there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #7)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:37 PM

8. has no process for accepting a supernatural explanation as being the "best" explanation

presuming "supernatural" to effectively mean "unsupported by experimental facts and observations".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #8)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 02:19 PM

9. Kinda sorta.

It has a process for determining the most likely explanation for a given phenomenon. Supernatural explanations are necessarily excluded because there's a height restriction on this ride and they don't meet the bar.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is the superiority of science as a means to understand and make predictions germane to the universe at large has several hundred years of precedent. The inferiority of praying, rolling chicken bones, or standing on one's head for, like, a really long time, has several thousand years of precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #9)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 02:22 PM

10. thanks to my personal prayers, there have been no major volcanic eruptions in connecticut this year!

the evidence is all around us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 02:30 PM

11. Oh yeah?

You obviously haven't been my parents' house on taco Tuesday.

Myth busted!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #11)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 02:35 PM

12. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:10 AM

17. The best part is there's no proof that isn't true

So we must consider the possibility it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unblock (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 10:09 AM

16. Every sperm is sacred

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 12:58 PM

3. You mean like when someone says god will make more oil

as an explanation of where oil comes from? People turn away from scientific evidence all the time either by force like the Inquisition, or peer pressure from the other cult members, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 01:00 PM

5. Evolution

Creationism is the new Explanation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Apr 24, 2018, 04:32 PM

13. Bueller...bueller...



Anyone...theological substitute for science...anyone...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Thu Apr 26, 2018, 08:09 AM

14. Kick...

...do all-ya-all need more time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Mon Apr 30, 2018, 09:15 AM

15. Monday Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2018, 02:13 PM

18. Kick, because...

...false infallibility has reared its ugly head and...reasons...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue May 8, 2018, 02:27 PM

19. Yeah, I'm coming up empty on that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Mon May 14, 2018, 08:52 AM

20. Monday kick...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #20)

Mon May 14, 2018, 02:47 PM

21. How odd that no one has come up with an actual response.

You'd think the pro-religious among us would jump at the chance to discuss the positive aspects of religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #21)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:00 PM

22. Yes...

...how odd indeed.

Not even one concrete example.

The absence of any credible response is enough to make a thinking person go hmmmm....
..."I wonder why that could be?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #22)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:09 PM

24. Why did nobody present the "Noah's Flood Formed the Grand Canyon" example.

There are whole websites out there promoting that idea. Why, the website below is just full of "scientific information" about that:

http://www.grandcanyonflood.com/

or here:

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/startling-evidence-for-noahs-flood/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #24)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:14 PM

25. I would hesitate to suggest a one reason: an adversion to...

...ridicule.

But, given some of the empirical evidence to be found in the threads around here in regards to ignoring ridicule, the avoidance of such is maybe insufficient reason not to post such an example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #25)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:17 PM

27. Perhaps so. Still, one would think that someone

would make at least some attempt to present something. Perhaps they could find nothing to offer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #21)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:08 PM

23. Not even a lame attempt to respond, actually.

I mean, one can find a number of "creation science" websites, where arguments are made of that nature. Normally, we see quoted material from such websites here occasionally, but usually on other subjects.

Apparently, nobody is going to offer any examples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:16 PM

26. None-the-less...

...I will continue to ask, on the off chance that a credible answer may be found, which would be profondly interesting in the extreme.

And, to make a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #26)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:18 PM

28. I salute your continued challenge!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #28)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:19 PM

29. Thank you,

and return the favor...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #20)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:23 PM

30. Sorta nonsensicle

Even if I drew my inspiration from faith for something, in essence the next step would be to find evidence or a testable hypothesis, at which point one would be back within the realm of science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #30)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:25 PM

31. So what your are saying is that there are no...

...rational methods of theological inquiry?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #31)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:26 PM

32. No scientific ones

Theological inquiry usually rests upon faith and theological writings from the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zipplewrath (Reply #32)

Mon May 14, 2018, 03:28 PM

33. So...

...'yes'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 12:46 PM

34. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 02:40 PM

35. Recommending your own thread for visibility?

Revealing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 05:56 PM

36. can't help yourself, g?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 11:51 PM

37. Not in the slightest...

...not "Rec'ed" at all, just 'kicked'.

And for your simple edification, a kick <> Rec'ed.

Just so we're clear on the basic concepts.

Have a glorious/godless day

And be nice to the next nihilist you meet, she maybe more optimistic than anyone you have yet to meet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Wed Jul 17, 2019, 11:52 PM

38. Oh, and...

...thanks for your help with the thread visibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 11:16 AM

39. Thank you for the admission. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #39)

Thu Jul 18, 2019, 11:25 AM

40. Admission?...

...not so much, more akin to Acknowledgement of Reality.

If you wish to conjure some fantasy 'admission', go for it, such is your wont (apparently).

Your beliefs are there to make you feel better, regardless of whether they comport to reality or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #39)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:59 PM

44. He admittted the thing... you accused him of... that he didn't do.. and didn't admit?

Someone forgot to carry a one here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 15, 2019, 10:54 AM

48. Revealing of what?

What has been revealed in your post is perhaps not what you intended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Fri Jul 26, 2019, 08:11 PM

41. Kick...

....anyone...anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 11:47 AM

42. Kick (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 06:58 PM

43. Vaccines, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 08:11 PM

45. could you explain?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #43)

Fri Dec 13, 2019, 09:16 PM

46. By what mode of Theological Inquiry was this...

...discovery found? My understanding is that the genesis of this social position (i.e. discounting the efficacy of vaccinations) was derived from a debunked/false paper, mascerading as peer reviewed science, on autism.

But, I do acknowledge your sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #46)

Sat Dec 14, 2019, 10:28 AM

47. There are many scientific ideas

discounted by some because of quack science.

This does not negate the negative effect of religion on science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #46)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 01:11 PM

49. Certain religious sects forbid it.

Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christian Scientists for example. They are not numerous, but they certainly exist.

However the metaphysical claims of various anti-vaccine groups are often indistinguishable from deistic metaphysics. And they number much more than the JW's, CS's and 'dutch reformed church' and other explicitly theological groups that forbid vaccines.

Edit: I may have somewhat misinterpreted your original question. Re-reading it, it looks like you are looking for an example that is much more broadly accepted, rather than the example I have given, which is a minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 01:28 PM

50. I'm realy trying to zero in on...

...a theological mode of inquiry that could rival the Scientific Mode.

It's easy to just deny a finding of an apparent fact, but at least with a proper Scientific mode, you can replace/alter that apparent knowledge of fact based on empirical evidence, i.e through a (recursive) logical process.

How does one do that via a theological method?

Is it merely, "because I believe it to be so"?
Is that all it is?

If so, 'weak'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #50)

Mon Dec 16, 2019, 01:33 PM

51. Ah, yes I clearly misunderstood.

I am aware of precisely zero instances of any theological model supplanting the scientific method on any issue whatsoever. At no time has any theological opinion/proclamation/idea better described the universe and our place in it, than has scientific inquiry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Original post)

Tue Feb 4, 2020, 02:54 PM

52. Still...anyone?...

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread