Those of faith lack the use of the analytical mind: study (worship, believers)

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

a University science professor had been giving the same "extra credit" problem on the final exam for his science students for 29 years and no one had ever solved it, in a program the caliber of Cal Tech. The professor included it because it was something he himself had been unable to solve in his own area of expertise. One year, he was astonished to see the problem solved by one of his students. He suspected the student of cheating, of course, because the student was not that outstanding in his academics (as "not outstanding" as someone could be and still be in a program the caliber of Cal Tech), so the professor could easily spot that someone had answered the problem for him.

So he confronted the student, and wanted to know who had provided the answer. The professor started asking was it Dr. X? Professor Y? Dr. Z? naming all the world-class scientists in his field that he suspected of assisting the student. The university student of course kept saying "not him, no, not him" to each name. At this point the professor offered the student a deal: he would not move forward with disciplinary action for cheating, if the student gave him the name of who answered the problem on the exam. Since the student had passed the regular part of the exam on his own merit, and had only cheated on the extra credit portion of the exam, the professor had leeway on whether to pass him for the course or not.

The student agreed to the terms of the deal, and gave him the name. The professor looked baffled and puzzled and said "who the heck is that? where does he work? what government project is he working on that his identity is kept secret? what lab employs him? what is his specialty? does he publish his journal articles under a different name to preserve his anonymity? why have I not heard of him?" and on and on, and when the student just kept shaking his head no, no, no, none of the above, to all those questions, finally the professor said, "I must meet him. You must take me to meet him."

the student said "it's my uncle" and was mortified because (a) he had been caught cheating and (b) his uncle was an old guy dressed in black who sat around all day studying Torah. His uncle had been at the house when the university student had been sweating bullets on the very difficult take-home exam. He had completed the whole exam but could not fathom the extra credit problem. He handed the paper to his uncle, who set down the volume he was studying, studied the paper briefly, thought for a bit, spent several minutes writing on the paper, and handed the paper back to his nephew. Then he picked up the volume of Gemarra again and continued studying Torah.

(the student's cousin shared the story with me, she has the same uncle, an Orthodox religious family for many generations)

Nice story and word salad.

He said, I heard, it was told, etc. etc.

Of course, no details. No citations. No names. No nothing except fluff.

You fail.

[O.A.Bachlow]

So if I think with my tiny little grey jello brain that the endless universe is conscious - that it is aware...that there is a God...then I am stupid?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by bUU

the examples could go on and on and on.

a scientist visits a certain rabbi briefly once a year and during this visit the rabbi asks for a copy of his doctoral thesis. The scientist sends him the document, which is over 300 pages long, it is on a complex technical science topic. the following year the scientist visits the rabbi again, and the rabbi mentions without skipping a beat to compare what was written on page 19 with the equations on page 212, because something had been overlooked. The scientist chuckles to himself when he sees the rabbi is absolutely correct. None of his thesis advisors or doctoral thesis committee members spotted this.

again, one of those little old guys dressed in black with a beard who does nothing but study Torah all day. How many of you have ever sat down and read a published doctoral science thesis from cover to cover? Were you able to read it? Did you understand it? Could you critique it? Was it your own thesis? Were you on the thesis committee? Did you find discrepancies that the thesis committee overlooked?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Nice story and word salad. He said, I heard, it was told, etc. etc. Of course, no details. No citations. No names. No nothing except fluff. You fail.

and you pass with flying colors three of the topics addressed in this thread, those of "closed mind," and "devaluing the experience of others" and "virulent hostility when presented with information that threatens your dogma"

you exceed and excel beyond the lowest standards possible in each of those areas.

[MartinEden99]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

a scientist visits a certain rabbi briefly once a year and during this visit the rabbi asks for a copy of his doctoral thesis. The scientist sends him the document, which is over 300 pages long, it is on a complex technical science topic. the following year the scientist visits the rabbi again, and the rabbi mentions without skipping a beat to compare what was written on page 19 with the equations on page 212, because something had been overlooked. The scientist chuckles to himself when he sees the rabbi is absolutely correct. None of his thesis advisors or doctoral thesis committee members spotted this.

again, one of those little old guys dressed in black with a beard who does nothing but study Torah all day. How many of you have ever sat down and read a published doctoral science thesis from cover to cover? Were you able to read it? Did you understand it? Could you critique it? Was it your own thesis? Were you on the thesis committee? Did you find discrepancies that the thesis committee overlooked?

Do I need a campfire before I can get the names of the scientist, the rabbi, the "complex science topic"?

Because anybody can make up stories like this as there is insufficient key details to verify it.

That I had to tell you this is....concerning.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by MartinEden99

Do I need a campfire before I can get the names of the scientist, the rabbi, the "complex science topic. Because anybody can make up stories like this as there is insufficient key details to verify it. That I had to tell you this is....concerning.

Another post illustrating the utter and complete inability to even listen to anything that remotely disturbs a set of rigidly held dogmatic beliefs. Another post from the lofty heights of condescension and the knee jerk shop-worn sneering i don't believe you/ you are lying/ because I don't like what you are saying.

That is concerning. And that is the topic this thread is addressing. I have no desire to prove or convince anyone of anything. I am simply giving mordant examples of something he said in post #113 had never happened and could never happen. Posts such as yours in response have proven the points being made regarding an utter closed-minded inability to even listen to experiences that are not what you want to hear.

in another thread mordant raised a great point, raised an astute and brilliant connection about the correlation between a person's emotional response to data that is contrary to what their current views are, as an indicator of the rigidity of their dogma, and their willingness or unwillingness to allow others to have a voice, without berating, ridiculing, name calling, insults. Do they respond in fear? do they feel threatened? Do they become hostile?


Nobody is asking you to change your beliefs. I could care less what you believe. Just allow others to share experiences you don't like without becoming condescending and sneering.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

Which I can only read as a deflection intended to rationalize not responding to my points with the respect you expect from others for your points. Since you go on from there to mordantsplain even more to me, making up more things I didn't say just so you have something to argue against, I guess you're communicating to me that we're done respecting each other in this thread, so how about we just agree to disagree and leave it at that?

I did not make up that you are suggesting that atheists are protesting non-peacefully. I asked if that was your position. You are free to deny it and explain what your position actually is and how what you are accusing us of is something other than that. If you'd rather run from the topic, that is your prerogative also.

I certainly didn't make up my own position, which you haven't addressed either. You can run from that too if you wish.

I don't disrespect you entirely, you have a lot of valid things to say. But in regard to your wanting to silence atheists solely on the basis that they make theists feel bad sometimes, you are part of the problem I described of entrenched theist power dynamics. You are every bit as insistent as a fundamentalist Christian that god belief must be deferred to and honored and not ever offended. The only difference is that you have a less detailed list of imagined offenses. You draw the line, not at accepting LGBTQ people or not believing in a six day creation or a literal flood or an inerrant verbally and plenarily inspired Bible, but at our failure to believe in some sort of deity based on religious faith being inherently sacrosanct in any and all contexts.

Sorry ... but I cannot agree with that. And that doesn't make me bad, exclusionary, hateful, or intolerant. You're free to believe anything you want ... but not to demand and insist that theism has the same evidentiary basis as any other belief, and therefore insist that in theism, there must never be heard a discouraging word.

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Nice story and word salad.

He said, I heard, it was told, etc. etc.

Of course, no details. No citations. No names. No nothing except fluff.

You fail.

Yep. Just another one of those silly stories like the one about the god-believing student that put one over on his professor regarding the existence of 'God'...ending with the classic line.....'that professor was Albert Einstein.'

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

and you pass with flying colors three of the topics addressed in this thread, those of "closed mind," and "devaluing the experience of others" and "virulent hostility when presented with information that threatens your dogma"

you exceed and excel beyond the lowest standards possible in each of those areas.

Yet you still have not referenced or cited your story.

It is your words, and your words only. Why should we accept them as credible?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by MartinEden99

Do I need a campfire before I can get the names of the scientist, the rabbi, the "complex science topic"?

Because anybody can make up stories like this as there is insufficient key details to verify it.

That I had to tell you this is....concerning.

Tz, you surely don't expect a couple of anecdotal stories about an unnamed rabbi and unnamed professor in an unspecified specialty discussing an unmentioned problem to constitute a demonstration of how theologically derived knowledge has trumped science.

And I am not so arrogant as to suggest that a rabbi could not be a polymath who actually has a deep understanding of science and is using science rather than theology to correct a scientist.

All we are asking for is details and substance, we are not immediately rejecting the story. But you surely understand that anyone can tell a story. What was the problem the student's uncle solved? How did he solve it? What news stories can you point to that tell this heartwarming story and quote the participants? Where did you get the story from? What are the credentials and credibility of the original source?

These are perfectly reasonable questions that demonstrate openness AND deference to your beliefs. Do regale us with the details so that we can see for ourselves. Don't stop with an anecdote. Flesh it out.