Since so many of our discussions lately are about science, I thought I'd toss in some comments by three of my favorite dead people.

The Pixie

Well-known member
EXACTLY! Every scientific statement, especially those which predict are based on observation. I even gave a meteorological example.
But where did he say anything about prediction?

A lot of scientific statements are predictions, not observations. Hence, his claim that "Every scientific statement" can be reduced to an observation is wrong.

So you think Lewis was wrong, since you think scientific predictions are NOT based on observation? How do you THINK they are made? By guessing? By magic?
You are confusing "based on" with "exclusively". Deliberately, I would guess. Lewis said "Every scientific statement" can be reduced to an observation, which is wrong. To claim every scientific statement is ultimately based on observations would be fair enough.

Yeah, right. Explain how that is done without any observation.
My position is that science involves both observation AND prediction, so I will not be bothering to address your straw man.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
But where did he say anything about prediction?

A lot of scientific statements are predictions, not observations. Hence, his claim that "Every scientific statement" can be reduced to an observation is wrong.

Look, answer these questions yes or no:

Is there a single scientific prediction that is not based on observation?

Do you really think C.S. Lewis had never heard a weather forecast?

He mentioned putting stuff in a pot and heating it. Do you think he was indicating that nothing could be predicted from that?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Look, answer these questions yes or no:

Is there a single scientific prediction that is not based on observation?
No. Again you are conflating "is based on" with "is exclusively".

Do you really think C.S. Lewis had never heard a weather forecast?
No.

You turn. Answer this question yes or no:

Do you really think hearing about weather forecasts is evidence a person understands the scientific method of drawing predictions from a hypothesis and then testing experimentally?

He mentioned putting stuff in a pot and heating it. Do you think he was indicating that nothing could be predicted from that?
Yes. That is what he says. "Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'" There is no sense there that the scientist expected to see anything through his telescope at that time, or that he consequently had reason to think about what he might see on some other day. All science is - so Lewis would have us believe - is recording what was observed at that moment.

As Docphin points out, that may not be what he actually believes himself, but is is certainly what he says, what he wants his audience to believe of science.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
No. Again you are conflating "is based on" with "is exclusively".

So you're now hallucinating the word "exclusively" in what Lewis said?


So you just refuted your own nonsense about how Lewis did not believe that science predicts, unless you are even dumber and think he didn't believe meteorology was science.

Do you really think hearing about weather forecasts is evidence a person understands the scientific method of drawing predictions from a hypothesis and then testing experimentally?t they

No. When my kids were six they did not know the about the scientific method, but they sure knew that a weather forecast was a prediction.


All science is - so Lewis would have us believe - is recording what was observed at that moment.

He never said that. You made it up. How ironic that a guy who is always whining without proof about how people he never knew from 2,000 years ago made stuff up, would make up so much stuff, easily provable, today.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So you're now hallucinating the word "exclusively" in what Lewis said?
He said "every scientific statement"; that implies exclusively.

So you just refuted your own nonsense about how Lewis did not believe that science predicts, unless you are even dumber and think he didn't believe meteorology was science.

No. When my kids were six they did not know the about the scientific method, but they sure knew that a weather forecast was a prediction.
So you just refuted your own inanity. Clearly Lewis knowing about a weather forecast does not mean he has a clue about the scientific method

He never said that. You made it up.
That is exactly what he said.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
He said "every scientific statement"; that implies exclusively.

To STATEMENTS, yes. A prediction is not a statement. If I predict that Trump will be our next president, I am not stating that he will be. I'm surprised that I have to inform you of something so elementary. And even more surprising is your ridiculous implication that Lewis was unaware of the existence of weather forecasts.

So you just refuted your own inanity. Clearly Lewis knowing about a weather forecast does not mean he has a clue about the scientific method.

He sure as hell had more than a clue about the PREDICTIVE nature of weather forecasts.

That is exactly what he said.

And yet it isn't, which explains your failure to copy/paste where he did.

Let me give you a little advice, which might prevent further embarrassments like this one in the future. This is important, so I'm going to put in in bold, so listen up:

I know you have a big ego. I do too. I'll bet that when you see that a post has been made by a polemical sparring partner of yours, you probably rush to the post, licking your rhetorical chops in hopes of besting your opponent. But jumping the gun by hurriedly replying without making sure your arguments are both cohesively logical as well as relevant to the discussion at hand just makes you look the fool. And to add the tone of smugness to your reply just worsens the matter for you. And then to double down, even after having been shown the holes in your rebuttal, well that just entangles you even more to the point that you become like Br'er Fox squirming around with the tar baby in the tar pits.

Just be more careful. That's all I'm asking. That way there will be less opportunity for the both of us to feed our inflated egos.
 

Furion

Well-known member
And even more surprising is your ridiculous implication that Lewis was unaware of the existence of weather forecasts.
The fate of Christianity is riding on this.

If Lewis never heard Al Chubby Roker give divine guidance on today's weather, then clearly Christianity is untrue.

I think.

It's hard to tell because atheists are so smart and christians need assistance tying our shoes.
 

Lucian

Active member
It says every, stiggy:

Every scientific statement in the long run, however complicated it looks, really means something like, 'I pointed the telescope to such and such a part of the sky at 2:20 a.m. on January 15th and saw so-and-so,' or, 'I put some of this stuff in a pot and heated it to such-and-such a temperature and it did so-and-so.'

He is just plain wrong, as some scientific statement make predictions, for example.
This seems an oddly uncharitable way of reading Lewis, and surely you don’t seriously believe that he was unaware when writing this that scientists qua scientists make predictions. He seems simply to be talking about statements of fact: every scientific statement of fact is inevitably about describing the way the world works, as opposed to addressing more existential questions, such as why there’s a world in the first place, which Lewis thinks is religion’s domain.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
This seems an oddly uncharitable way of reading Lewis, and surely you don’t seriously believe that he was unaware when writing this that scientists qua scientists make predictions. He seems simply to be talking about statements of fact: every scientific statement of fact is inevitably about describing the way the world works, as opposed to addressing more existential questions, such as why there’s a world in the first place, which Lewis thinks is religion’s domain.
This is how I look at the theory of evolution. It makes statements of fact by what is observed but it has underlying presuppositions. The presuppositions lead to certain predictions and leave any other possibility out even the possibility of divine direction in the process.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
This is how I look at the theory of evolution. It makes statements of fact by what is observed but it has underlying presuppositions. The presuppositions lead to certain predictions and leave any other possibility out even the possibility of divine direction in the process.
I'm not sure. If any other possibility presented itself for examination, I think it would be looked at
 

Furion

Well-known member
This is how I look at the theory of evolution. It makes statements of fact by what is observed but it has underlying presuppositions. The presuppositions lead to certain predictions and leave any other possibility out even the possibility of divine direction in the process.
Science just does not consider the supernatural, on purpose. It seeks naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
This is how I look at the theory of evolution. It makes statements of fact by what is observed but it has underlying presuppositions. The presuppositions lead to certain predictions and leave any other possibility out even the possibility of divine direction in the process.
Evolutionary theory does not leave anything out. It explains the cause for biological diversity. Thats all it explains. It leaves nothing out. Therefore, God had to use evolution for biologic diversity because nothing is left out. There is nothing left out that evolution is missing. It does everything it is supposed to do.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
Evolutionary theory does not leave anything out. It explains the cause for biological diversity. Thats all it explains. It leaves nothing out. Therefore, God had to use evolution for biologic diversity because nothing is left out. There is nothing left out that evolution is missing. It does everything it is supposed to do.
Do you think God got evolution started and did not intervene afterward?

What is your opinion about this video?

 

docphin5

Well-known member
Do you think God got evolution started and did not intervene afterward?

What is your opinion about this video?

That is a very good question because its answer hinges on whether God answers prayer or not. I will put it in a practical situation. For example, if my DNA was affected by a natural mutation such that all my children would end up disabled would God fix my DNA with his powerful wand if I prayed to have healthy children? IOW, is God more powerful than natural processes, for example, evolution? Does God answer prayer? This is what is at stake.

The atheist says natural mechanisms are all there is therefore, no answered prayer, no magical wand, no God. The religious consciousness says God is more powerful than nature, God can do the impossible and he answers prayer. Therefore, Evolution becomes the battleground for both sides for IF all biological life (>1 billion years) is dependent upon nature itself and unalterable THEN where is God in all this?

IMO, God nurtures the Good Human, their soul by his virtues. He heals and cares for their souls. Pray for our inner good human and the heavens will be open to you. You will rise above anything the material world can throw at you, at us. There is no fear for the soul when surrounded by God’s nurturing care. The body will be weighed down with distress, pain, sickness but the soul can rise above it all and be happy, healthy, and whole. IMO, the raising of the dead in the New Testament is the soul becoming alive to God, the true miracle with eternal consequences. The lame man leaping for joy is the soul leaping out of his disabled body into the heavens dancing before God at perceiving him for the first time knowing that he is cared for. These are the true miracles, IMO.
 

Caroljeen

Well-known member
That is a very good question because its answer hinges on whether God answers prayer or not. I will put it in a practical situation. For example, if my DNA was affected by a natural mutation such that all my children would end up disabled would God fix my DNA with his powerful wand if I prayed to have healthy children? IOW, is God more powerful than natural processes, for example, evolution? Does God answer prayer? This is what is at stake.

The atheist says natural mechanisms are all there is therefore, no answered prayer, no magical wand, no God. The religious consciousness says God is more powerful than nature, God can do the impossible and he answers prayer. Therefore, Evolution becomes the battleground for both sides for IF all biological life (>1 billion years) is dependent upon nature itself and unalterable THEN where is God in all this?

IMO, God nurtures the Good Human, their soul by his virtues. He heals and cares for their souls. Pray for our inner good human and the heavens will be open to you. You will rise above anything the material world can throw at you, at us. There is no fear for the soul when surrounded by God’s nurturing care. The body will be weighed down with distress, pain, sickness but the soul can rise above it all and be happy, healthy, and whole. IMO, the raising of the dead in the New Testament is the soul becoming alive to God, the true miracle with eternal consequences. The lame man leaping for joy is the soul leaping out of his disabled body into the heavens dancing before God at perceiving him for the first time knowing that he is cared for. These are the true miracles, IMO.
Well said, but that's only half the story. God cares for us entirely, body and soul/spirit not just the non-material aspect of our being.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Well said, but that's only half the story. God cares for us entirely, body and soul/spirit not just the non-material aspect of our being.
But the material world is presently ruled by the “God of this world”. (2 cor 4:4), the same one who has condemned our physical human bodies to suffering and death, despite any amount of good we do. Therefore, the true God and heavenly Father, namely, Elyon, must “destroy the (material) works of the Adversary” BEFORE Elyon can “make all things new“ for the good human souls to inherit.

Because you and the orthodox church have confounded the “god of this world” with the heavenly Father you don’t know why we ACTUALLY have to endure suffering. You erroneously think we suffer because of something an alleged human did so you think “the god of this world” should wave his magic wand and make anything better, per our request. But you forget that there remains a very powerful ”Power” over this material world working against us, namely, the Adversary. His power appears absolute over “the half” he currently rules until his power is taken away and given to the saints. Therefore, the divine nature or good nature rising in us is the exception to the universe as a whole. In that sense, the material world is against us. We are not going to win the “war” in our physical body (Romans 7:23) but like a good soldier never lay down our weapon, our honor, the truth, justice, what is good and right. We fight to the death for these things because that is what we choose to be forever and always.

Returning to your point, another way to think of it is that we care for and regulate our individual lives despite human suffering and death just as we will care for and regulate the cosmic body to rule over WHEN there is no pain or death. How much easier it will be for us to do when glorified in the future? And yet again, God cares for this world (the ”one body” of his Son) through his divine nature rising in us. The good human is the rising Son of God in the universe to be glorified in the future. These are all different ways of describing the same thing involving salvation of the world through the divine nature rising in us.

”For God so loved the WORLD (Greek: kosmos), that he gave his only [begotten alone] Son [who died], that whoever believes in him [the divine nature rising to life IN US] should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

”For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons [and daughters] of God.” (Romans 8:19)
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
This seems an oddly uncharitable way of reading Lewis, and surely you don’t seriously believe that he was unaware when writing this that scientists qua scientists make predictions.
I think it more that he wanted to denigrate science by reducing it to merely observations.

He seems simply to be talking about statements of fact: every scientific statement of fact is inevitably about describing the way the world works, as opposed to addressing more existential questions, such as why there’s a world in the first place, which Lewis thinks is religion’s domain.
There is a huge difference between, say, noting that an apple has fallen off a tree on the one hand and realising the same law of gravitation applies to apples and planets on the other. As far as I can see, Lewis was trying to promote the idea that science is only the former. Whether that was due to him really not understanding science or this was just a pretense so he could promote his agenda, I will admit I could not say,
 

Lucian

Active member
I think it more that he wanted to denigrate science by reducing it to merely observations.
There is a huge difference between, say, noting that an apple has fallen off a tree on the one hand and realising the same law of gravitation applies to apples and planets on the other. As far as I can see, Lewis was trying to promote the idea that science is only the former. Whether that was due to him really not understanding science or this was just a pretense so he could promote his agenda, I will admit I could not say,
You say that this as far as you can see, but there's no evidence of this whatsoever, unless I'm missing something crucial. I strongly recommend reading beyond the quoted material, and approaching texts charitably, or at least not uncharitably.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I think it more that he wanted to denigrate science by reducing it to merely observations.


There is a huge difference between, say, noting that an apple has fallen off a tree on the one hand and realising the same law of gravitation applies to apples and planets on the other.

So you think that the Oxford professor who wrote "Perelandra" was unfamiliar with the concept of gravity and the predictive powers of science to recognize that if the fruits on a branch, whether apples or oranges, if loosed from the branch, would not float into space, but would just like planets, be subject to the scientifically based law of gravity? That is not only uncharitable as Lucian noted, but downright silly.

As far as I can see, ..........

There you go again. See my previous post today in the other thread regarding the weakness of your premises resulting in the supposed strength of your conclusions.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
So you think that the Oxford professor who wrote "Perelandra" was unfamiliar with the concept of gravity and the predictive powers of science to recognize that if the fruits on a branch, whether apples or oranges, if loosed from the branch, would not float into space, but would just like planets, be subject to the scientifically based law of gravity? That is not only uncharitable as Lucian noted, but downright silly.
I am now coming round to the position that this was something he was claiming, rather than he actually thought it.

But I am curious what in Perelandra makes you think Lewis was familiar with the laws of gravity and the predictive powers of science. It is some decades since I read it; do please enlighten me. You are aware that it is science fiction, not science, right?
 
Top