Indoctrination is a good thing, if the doctrine is true. (In my youth, I was indoctrinated into how to run a nuclear submarine. Indoctrination was about life and death.)
…that you have come to realize yet.
So you are okay with indoctrination of children as long it is in your religion? So you are okay with a country like Iran and Saudi Arabia requiring every child to be indoctrinated into Islam? So are you for the Government indoctrinating children in this country into what? Do you think it should be required for parent’s to indoctrinate their children into their parent’s religion?
Our worldviews and confirmation biases are not all true.
Our worldviews and confirmation biases are certainly NOT true.
None of them? 
Presuming that you did not mean what you actually said, that none of them are true, what are you basing your certainty on?
1 Like
Joel Duff (@Joel_Duff) just posted another follow-up review of this book. It is refreshingly positive and really highlights the benefits of searching for common ground; one of the things that many of us here value quite highly.
2 Likes
Certainly your’s aren’t true. 
Mine might be. But here is the key difference. If I get new information and knowledge, I use my experience and reasoning to CHANGE my worldview and confirmation biases.
I know you are being funny, but this is no truer for you as it is for believers. You take new information and append it to your worldview and confirmation bias. We do the same.
2 Likes
You do well to laugh at that, because both our positions are ultimately positions of faith. (Don’t forget how well scripture aligns with both the beginning of the universe and climate change – weather extremes, fires and floods.) Testimony is evidence, if it is true, and the Christian has access to the ultimately true Testimony. So watch for reality to continue to align with it.
1 Like
Well, i wrote quickly. Maybe better phrased “truth about our existence”
Here is the definition of sciencism: “Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the purportedly objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.” (Wikipedia) If one tends to want to trust in science for means of values, then go all the way with this which leads to a serious philosophical roadblock in regards to how mass energy exists. This makes no sense that it produced itself or that it is eternal. And if the scientist that abides by sciencism chooses not to address this problem, then they are fitting the exact prediction in Christian theology that they know the Creator exists because the observation about the creation reveals Him to them, but they choose wrongly by turning Him down…and are therefore without excuse. God has made so much of a better Lord than i used to years ago in my life. This fact makes it worth talking about nwrickert!
There are probably some good Christian apologetic books about the conversion of Paul of Tarsus. Prior to his conversion, he was a high intellectual with a bend on politics of the day who was probably pretty motivated for gains in his pocketbook and praise from the people around him. And he saw the followers of Jesus Christ a threat to His sense of reasoning so found himself approving of their torture and even death. Then there was a quite dramatic history about his conversion. The histories which discuss the reality of his conversion are quite reliable historical narrative. Of course, Paul went on to be one of the foremost theologians useful for helping leaders see the connection between Jesus and Old Testament prophecy/theology. His sense of reason prior to becoming a Christian was blown to a million pieces when he was blinded by God and lead into a series of miraculous events that proved that the One whom he was persecuting was actually the One!
1 Like
Okay. I’m pretty sure that I do not adhere to scientism.
I’m not making sense of that at all. In particular, I’m not making sense of how you are using “values” there. I’m pretty sure you are not using it in the way intended by that Wikipedia quote.
No. Before his conversion, Paul, or rather Saul, was a devout Jew.
1 Like
What you are describing is not values. Using the scientific method to research the origin of the universe is not “determining normative and epistemological values”. Science doesn’t tell us what we ought to do, or what values we should apply to things.
Since Pharisees were lovers of money and the praise of men rather than lovers of God, as well as being devout Jews, @Greg has a point in that regard…
Luke 16:14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all of this and were scoffing at Jesus.
And Nicodemus, a Pharisee, came to Jesus at night, presumably out of fear of his peers…
John 3:2 He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs You are doing if God were not with him."
Paul was a pharisee. Many pharisees in Jesus day were zealous for a false version of faith where they made sub laws in their zeal to follow the law. This was a result of apostacy in their thinking…they were to become sort of a religious politician type who wore large phyacteries on their heads and belted out fancy prayers loud on the street corners to make an impression of themselves but could really care less for the poor oppressed, sick,lame and spiritually dead. According to Jesus, they were characterized as having a love of money. And i dont think that you could characterize them as having outward arrogance but more of a outward polish and inward selfishness. I would imagine them to be of much higher intelligence than the average man living then who would have memorized large portions of the law and most likely all of Moses teachings.
So that was Paul…but he was “the pharisee of the pharisees” who perfected the religious system yet was so apostate that he killed Christians.
With this in mind, listen to Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, chapters 1 and 2 on the radical change of nature in response to his faith in Jesus dying to save him from the wrath from God that he deserved yet was paid in full by Christ:
I understand what you are getting at. This is a tricky conversation for sure. This is the way i see this: First, i believe that science is one of the most important and precious gifts and indeed a form of “common grace” given to us by God. As i think on the medical issues the my extended family have endured that would have ended in our mourning over tragic loss of loved ones due to their death in a previous era, i am thankful for science.
But for a person like me who fully accepts the reality of the living Cause of mass energy whom i have trusted is the very living God as portrayed in Scripture, i feel that it is very sad that science, and in particular historical science that attempts to discover how we have found our existence is no longer discovery about the world God designed and created, but rather discovery which stiffs design at all costs. That is exactly what darwin instituted into the fabric of science.
You say science does not tell us what to do or say, but a brand of historical science that wants to fit pieces of the puzzle of life into a godless materialistic box at all cost (to a point of the ridiculous) and which declares itself even capable of discovering all truth of our existence, will indefinately affect the way we feel and think in general. We are just human. In fact, if you are who you say you are a strong agnostic who is about 90% sure that God does not really exist (i say 90% as you gave me a 9 in a scale to 10 on this in another thread) and you are a scientist who has ben fully indoctrinated to believe the philosophy akin to darwin on our existence…do you see how the philosophy may have attributed to your overall belief in general about God? There have been some atheists on this site who say ethics and morality changes in a changing culture. But what does that mean? Just recently the governor of VA gave hints that he supports an ethic that born children are ok to leave to die upon the parents consent. Thats pure evil…as evil as the what is symbolized in the pic of the kkk mask and blackface on his medical college yearbook page. So where does ethics and morality slide from there? If my 2 year old has tantrums often, his life is not worthy of our support and care?
And racism- if materialism is king that rides on the shoulders of darwin, i see a perfectly straight road thats leads to the devalue of human life and dignity based on a persons ethnicity. On the other hand, if a person who is a Christian like me who believes that the whole human race was created in Gods image, male and female who are all equally loved and who all equally have their identity restored unto their Creator in His forgiveness, there are absolutely no grounds for racist thinking.
I really think some of you guys need to check out the works on these things at the Discovery Inst. I dont agree w everything going on there but i believe they are on the right track in dealing with the materialistic philosphy masking itself as objectivity.