About
Welcome to Pesharim. You probably came to the About section because you were wondering what “Pesharim” means; I would too. Problem is, I’m not going to be telling you much about the term “Pesharim” aside from th fact that it is the Hebrew equivalent for “interpretation”. Oddly enough, any other meanings of the term has very little to do with this site. Go figure. So if you’re here only for that, you can go now.
If, perhaps, you came for something else (i.e. you weren’t looking for the definition of “Pesharim”) you’re obviously lost. But that’s ok, you can stay.
Allow me to introduce myself. I’m an average-ish homeschooled senoir in highschool, although I am dual-enrolled at the local community college. I’m mostly obsessed with science, art and the internet. Science, as far as ornithology, biology and physics; and art, as far as watercolours, oil, rapidiograph, 3D animation and other digital media.
Note: That’s all for now, but I’ll probably accommodate this page with some more arbitrary details later on. If you’re a fan of my blog, or if you just think I’m really cool, brilliant or hot, check me out on facebook. Even so, I likely won’t accept your friend request unless I’ve met you in real life, or talked with you online to some extent… or unless I can somehow tell that you also are really cool, brilliant, or hot. Er… on second though, if you comment enough I may just let a few of those slide, lol.
I’ve read through some of your posts with great amusement.
Scientists postulate based on existing evidence and the reproduction repeatable results in their pursuit of the unknown.
Creationists such as yourself, the unknown already being “known” via faith, need only misinterpret the data to fit your ideological goals. Luckily, there’s only ever one answer – “God”. How convenient for you. It saves you the trouble of actually engaging in meaningful scientific work while at the same time poking “holes” in theories that threaten your ideology.
Any ethical scientist would convert instantly to Christianity given rigorously proven data that God exists.
Can you say the same re: God not existing, given the mounting evidence that the universe is much much bigger than an anthropomorphic god derived from a text even now becoming increasingly culturally irrelevant? Oh right, the only thing that could create such a universe would be an even more complex God. Phew, that makes things easy!
Hmmm, Rich, I don’t believe I entirely grasp your argument. I do hate to sound as if I might be ignoring the point of your comment, but, honestly…. what was the point?
You ask if I could say the same — if I would convert instantly to atheism given rigorously proven data that God does not exist — and I see a couple errors in this question. Initially, I think that atheism isn’t an idea such as one can convert to. Rather, atheism is a negation of the belief in a God or gods. It’s really not a matter of converting from one belief to another, but as far as science is concerned, from trivially accepting one proposition (i.e. a hypothesis or theory) to rejecting a proposition. “Converting” is entirely out of the question.
I suppose I digress. Now then, would I convert instantly to atheism given rigorously proven data that God does not exist?
Strictly speaking, the existence of God remains outside of the limits of science. So while no one could ever disprove the existence of God (b/c science merely deals in disproving, rather than proving) any Christian could also never presume to be more than an agnostic, as far as the limits of science are concerned. So again I have to ask what the point of your proposition is?
Also, science is amoral. So, I’m really quite curious what you mean by an “ethical scientist”. I believe that any scientist should, indeed, rightly be a skeptic, which casts into a fair bit of doubt your statement that a scientist would instantly convert to Christianity. I remind you that Christianity is far from being the only belief system, religion or the like that is based upon the existence of a deity.
You say, “Creationists [...] need only misinterpret the data to fit your ideological goals.” See, this is where the element of peer-review comes into the scientific method. And I risk sounding somewhat unscientific in daring you to do this, but please, if you find I misinterpret any data (ideological goals, for the moment, aside) don’t hesitate but to correct me. Seriously.