Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is really the summation of the thread. While some questioning by people with a sound case would be welcomed, it is too often left to those who have little understanding of the subject and rely on cutting and pasting from other websites to make their case. What's worse is, that when you point out that they are posting unreliable material, they go into fingers in the ear mode, posting Biblical stuff about wisdom is foolishness.
Well let's take an example. Out of body experiences, NED's and memories of past lives.
These are presented as just what they appear to be and are claimed as evidence of and afterlife (or reincarnation) a soul and generally are taken as validating religious belief.
Since not a few phenomena presented as evidence of the supernatural or religious beliefs have turned out to just something going on in our heads, it is not unreasonable for science to ask whether there could be some other explanation for these mysterious occurrences. This questioning is what is called (by you and others) an 'attack' of these 'things'. You must see that is being over- defensive and rather protectionist about certain views and beliefs.
It is hard to escape the conviction that it is just another manifestation of the wish of the religious and cultists that science would stop showing up their beliefs to be mistaken, delusionary and misinterpreted. They would rather be left deluded than enlightened.
Sorry, but I hate to be fooled and lied to. I want to know the truth not believe comfortable lies. So I want research done even if it does prove a soul, an afterlife and a god. If it demonstrates that there is (yet again) no sound evidence for them, that is just too bad. The 'attack' goes on.
1- There are two sides to that coin. The attacks come from both sides of these issues. You do realize that, right? You have seen atheists who attack religious people (verbally) as much as religious people attack non-religious people, right?
2- A difference of ideas or intepretations of an event is not necessarily a "lie". If a person believes it to be true, they are not lying, are they?
I sometimes wonder why the most scientifically illiterate are the ones who advocate theories the have absolutley no understanding of. They'll bash anyone who questions what they parrot but probably have less understanding of the matter than many who argue against it.
Can you give me some examples of people advocating theories that have no understanding of? I don't doubt what you are saying is true, I just haven't seen many examples of it. Maybe I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it, since some of these theories might be over my head. You see, I don't think I am one of those people who try to debate theories I don't understand. But in my mind, with my limited intellect, I do believe it is possible that just as the OP said "religion isn't everything" science isn't everything either. I simply believe (no scientific theory here) that perhaps science can't explain everything.
That is really the summation of the thread. While some questioning by people with a sound case would be welcomed, it is too often left to those who have little understanding of the subject and rely on cutting and pasting from other websites to make their case. What's worse is, that when you point out that they are posting unreliable material, they go into fingers in the ear mode, posting Biblical stuff about wisdom is foolishness.
It reminds me of the very common "Appeal to Einstein" (as I will label it). When the subject of "is there a God?" pops up, it is almost a surety that a believer will quote some of Einstein's letters in which he mentions God*, and then conclude that "if the greatest scientific mind of all history believed in God, then that settles it!"
* - (I'm not embarking on a discussion of Einstein's thoughts on God and whether he believed in a God of the Book or a Spinozan god, how valid they were or what they meant - just how they are perceived by believers and used to provide more nebulous 'evidence' for belief)
These believers - who normally eschew modernism, humanism and science as little more than "theories" - will gladly accept the words of a scientist when it suits their pleasure. They did the same thing with Darwin, and the supposed "death-bed confession" (the merits of which I will not discuss or comment on here). They reach the false conclusion that such comments (whether actual, misquoted or falsely attributed) immediately invalidate all scientific conclusions that "clash" with Faith, or that the "confessors" statements negates their previous work.
In the minds of the Faithful, the un-scientific quotes (and this is an important distinction, one in which the average believer is unable to differentiate**) of the famous-and-scientific hinting at the supernatural are all the evidence they need to demolish the strong foundations that science has built up for itself. It only suceeds in their own minds, for it is difficult to break natural principles and observed data with words.
** - The difference between science and speculation is one which is not grasped, apparantly, by many Faithful. They take the verbal quips of a genius and then stack them up against that same genius' actual scientific work (or another scientist's - the point remains the same) and make a false equality out of them: speculation, imagination, a confessional/devotional approach - these are placed alongside scientific laws, observation, and objective analysis; they are not the same thing, and the former should not be used with the same weight as the latter when approaching scientific issues.
I find this lack of differentiation very common among the Faithful.
Can you give me some examples of people advocating theories that have no understanding of? I don't doubt what you are saying is true, I just haven't seen many examples of it. Maybe I wouldn't recognize it if I saw it, since some of these theories might be over my head. You see, I don't think I am one of those people who try to debate theories I don't understand. But in my mind, with my limited intellect, I do believe it is possible that just as the OP said "religion isn't everything" science isn't everything either. I simply believe (no scientific theory here) that perhaps science can't explain everything.
I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you on your last sentence: "perhaps science can't explain everything". There are certain things that science can never really comment on effectively.
However - this does not admit that the universe does not run according to observable factors that science can very handily account for. The track record of science and how it has come to grips with the world is tremendous - we wouldn't be typing to each other now, if it were any other way.
Science may not have an eplanation for everything right now, and they might not have an explanation for everything even in the far future - but they do have current explanations, and they make sense. I believe it's wishful thinking to argue against an entire field, simply because it clashes with a religious belief that never pretended to be scientific; religious belief is just that: belief. It's based on worship, not on explaining why animals require oxygen to breathe. While some of the etiological stories in Genesis are very entertaining and thought-provoking, so are the other "just-so" stories out there. My favorite is the story about why the bear has no tail. Silly sleepy bear!
1- There are two sides to that coin. The attacks come from both sides of these issues. You do realize that, right? You have seen atheists who attack religious people (verbally) as much as religious people attack non-religious people, right?
I was specifically addressing the question of people who have inadequate knowledge of the subject 'attacking' science. When science 'attacks' some claims (eg, NED's) this is justified is they are raising valid questions. Atheists who attack religious people also raise valid questions and, as I say, we won't be silenced. Succinctly, attacking is fine, it is attacking without adequate understanding of the subject (1) that is not.
Quote:
2- A difference of ideas or interpretations of an event is not necessarily a "lie". If a person believes it to be true, they are not lying, are they?
I am tolerant of people who say things that they may mistakenly believe to be true. I am not tolerant of those who continue to claim as true things that they have already been shown are false. That fossils on tops of mountains prove a flood, that the nativity is true, if you just understand it, That Lucy is just a chimp, that the Abraham scroll was correctly translated by J. Smith, that Tactus, Suetonius and Thallia all historically prove Jesus. And of course misquoting, misrepresenting and trying to win arguments by cheating (I'm speaking generally, of course, not referring to you. )
There's also the Lincoln lie - claiming as true something that you would like to be true but don't know. That's really the general lie of religion, that the educated and informed people in it ought to know better that the Bible doesn't stand up, that God doesn't seem to intervene, that prayers and miracles are doubtful in the extreme and of course Faith is simply this Lincoln lie - claiming a belief as a fact to be believed and the subject of worship and on which should be based life, law and morality, when you have no good reason for believing it other than faith.
The whole monumental untruth is so gobsmackingly huge that I just have to call it a lie, a big, huge and widespread deceit which I find it rather hard to live with amicably.
(1) anticipating a response, few of us are authorities in the field, but some of us make efforts to get to grips with the facts and work hard at it. Others don't and prefer to simply go into denial when you tell them. True, I have known some atheists like that, sadly. It's one reason why I left my last Forum.
Can you give me some examples of people advocating theories that have no understanding of?
It's not that they advocate for theories that they have no understanding of, it's that they make false claims about the theories they have no understanding of in an attempt to undermine that theories' validity.
A perfect example are the wildly inaccurate and pseudoscientific claims that creationists make about evolution. Claims that there are "no transitional fossils," or that no new information is ever made, the classic "747 in a junkyard argument," or a wide variety of other claims that are not just inaccurate but downright lies.
The arguments mentioned above are some of the more popular ones and each of them starts with flawed assumptions about evolution. Assumptions, mind you, that the theory never makes, that no scientist has propagated as factual and that no one "in the know" has ever suggested.
They are textbook examples of strawman arguments. That is, they are falsely erected arguments meant to scare away those who can't judge the difference between a real and fake proposition - which is probably about 95% of the population. Those who deny anthropogenic climate change propagate the same garbage. So too do astrologists, chiropractors, naturopaths, homeopaths, defenders of Reiki, many conspiracy theorists, Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Oz, that guy from Coast to Coast, chewers of wheatgrass, Bigfoot believers, ghost hunters, and anti-vaccine people.
In many of the cases, a comfortable semi-friendly and attractive person is the one proposing the pseudoscience. Due to their familiarity, a person can make an automatic connection to them and it becomes easily believable to follow what they're saying as true. Despite this fundamental flaw in the human mind which afflicts nearly everyone; it takes a conscious effort for us to think about things in a different way. Perhaps the ugly guy who graduated from Yale with a PhD knows a little bit more about vaccinations than, say, Jenny McCarthy. Perhaps the collective scientific community, PhD or not, whose sole purpose is to test, test, test and retest hypothetical claims for validity and greater understanding has a bit more information on the topic than, say, Jenny McCarthy.
Correlation does not equal causation and despite the ample amounts of evidence proving this about a wide range of topics, people fall for the stupid arguments, use the ones propagated by celebrities and beautiful people, and latch to any guy in a white lab coat (real of fake) as an authority figure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
