dongiovanni1976x

According to that site you cited it starts with inductively collecting facts as the very first step. Hypothesizing without inductively collecting data is not only unproductive but absurd to say the least.

But you are right to suggest that science formulates hypotheses before they are proven as fact. Induction may precede deduction but there is a balancing act going on between the two back and forth as more data arrives and alters the conclusions. The primacy of induction only serves to demonstrate how knowledge is provisional and paradigms shift with time and that is all that Peter meant when he said history will uncover history.

No Robots

As is collecting data without hypothesizing. The two do go hand-in-hand, as you say.

Mr. Kirby apparently sees any kind of hypothesis as 'doctrinal', and therefore excluded.

Dreadnought

This thread is taking a rather bizarre twist as the participants are now trying to interpret the gospel of Kirby. This must be how theology began.

No Robots

Let us hope rather that this is how it ends.

dongiovanni1976x

If knowledge is provisional and subject to change with time as new facts are uncovered and scholarship requires the ability to accept that knowledge is provisional then if Peter defines "doctrinal Christians" as those Christians who hold "inflexible doctrines" as true a priori then they by that very definition are not being scholarly regardless of the interplay between induction and deduction.

P.S. Since I am on my six hundredth and sixty sixth post I will try to oblige and let this second hand interpretation of Peter Kirby's Gospel die here and now with theology.

Sauron

And you would be wrong. The claims of millions of muslims are incompatible with the claims of christianity. Ditto for Buddhists.

We can continue here.

However, you were responding to what I wrote, which is here:

The claims of both groups are mutually exclusive with those of christians.

So if your argument is based on having lots of people saying/believing something, then you have to admit that muslims and buddhists have real experiences of God.


No.

Sauron

Selling hairshirts and ashes today, Roger?

Peter said nothing of the kind.

The attempt to reduce both positions by creating a false dilemma has already been addressed.

1. Everyone has bias, so nobody's research is worthwhile.
OR
2. Everyone has bias, so everyone's research is equally valid.

Can you spot the mistakes?


Perhaps that extraordinarily narrow and parochial viewpoint is part of the problem with your research.

Not really. We have christians studying buddhist history, and buddhists studying islamic history. It's not remarkable, nor is it suspicious. The same principle holds with non-christians studying christianity.

Your attempt to impugn motive and/or question the very attempt to do such research is quite revealing of your own bias and motive, Roger. And thankfully, it also reinforces my point; to wit, that good scholarship rarely comes from people with strongly held religious bias, such as yourself.

An active imagination you have.

Anyone else spot the double standard here?

Sauron

But the "results" are:

* non-repeatable;
* non-testable (to detect dishonesty or mistake);
* contradictory even within the sample set (christians disagreeing with each other);
* based on axioms that are contradicted by OTHER people of faith who claim similar experiences (muslim/buddhist experiences that contradict christian ones);

You have consistently evaded answering on this point, judge.

Sauron

The world around us is physical, therefore secular.

What kind of engineer? And how often do you interact with QM on your job?

Why do you need to posit a creation of the laws? Again: inherent property of the universe.

1. What caused them? They are an inherent property of the universe.

2. No faith needed - already discussed how this is just semantic dishonesty to try and equate (a) faith with (b) reasoned assumption based upon evidence.

And you flatter yourself if you think that is the case. I've been examining this for 30 years. Others have been doing it for far longer.

No, you just need to realize that people can be quite serious and introspective, and often the result is their conclusions will undermine your own special beliefs.

Sauron

Perhaps they're waiting for evidence of either claim?

And perhaps they're waiting for someone to give them a method by which they should:

(a) accept your unprovable claims, while
(b) rejecting those of other religions? Or those of UFO abductees?

You see, that's the uncomfortable truth you are avoiding: in order to suspend the rules and allow your claims to stand, we'd have to be impartial and suspend the rules for everyone. Suddenly, we have claims of Sasquatch riding through the air on the back of a medieval dragon, and no way to say "That's absurd. Prove it, or shut up."

Christians want special treatment, an exemption from the ordinary rules of science and history that apply everywhere else. But when another group or person would ask for such an exemption to support *their* unprovable claim, then the Christians want to bring the rules back and exclude any upstart competitors.