Sciences vs. Religion

[glennr25]

Or how about this one.


We can keep arguing about this until the cows come home. The fact remains, religion and science are both institutions. These institutions are governed by people, not robots, not angels, not aliens from Planet X. And just like any institution there are things that are left unexplored to keep its reputation intact. So when a Nicola Tesla, or Denis Rancourt, or Jesus comes along and tries to explore those taboo areas and show people the truth, they are automatically shunned and disbarred from the institution.

Science can be good but it can be bad too. Religion can be good but can also be bad.

The person who is trying to discern between the two has to take it upon themselves to make a decision. Their decision should not be made by Bill Nye the science guy or some random priest in a church.

It should be done on their own.

[The Atheist]

Because I question the practitioners of science, I'm automatically anti-science?

Your dishonesty is tending towards the ridiculous stage now.

You're anti-science, because you keep attacking it.

These are just a few of your comments so far in this thread:

How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion

Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week.

Here's a good article about the many lies of science

What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all.

From six different posts. If you need more, I'm happy to find them.

[glennr25]

Your dishonesty is tending towards the ridiculous stage now.

You're anti-science, because you keep attacking it.

These are just a few of your comments so far in this thread:

How many people did the Nazis kill while trying to "advance" science?

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion

Tell that to the thousands of Japanese civilians that died when the atom bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

I'll believe him over all those hotshot scientists out to pad their million dollar homes any day of the week.

Here's a good article about the many lies of science

What scientists can't explain, they usually give up trying to come up with a viable explanation, or come up with something that makes no sense at all.

From six different posts. If you need more, I'm happy to find them.

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion. You should really learn to read between the lines.

[YesNo]

Why am I not surprised that you like a quote that's a flat-out lie? Peer-review and the scientific method itself guarantee against the opinions of scientists being "received as sermons" or "quoted like sacred texts." That some scientists say some quotable things is no different than quotable things being written by novelists or poets or philosophers or anyone; nobody, however, considers them "sacred texts." That's just ridiculous.

When I read the part about "sacred texts", it reminded me of Yudowsky's LessWrong, or perhaps they should be called "MoreWrong", blog posts. What makes these texts "sacred" has little to do with what is good about religion, but rather the dogmatic qualities one often associates with religions.

Here's RationalWiki's account of Yudkowsky: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eliezer_Yudkowsky

Now, I don't trust RationalWiki. Take what they say about Yudkowsky cautiously. After all, any site that has to market itself as "rational" suggests to me there is an unhealthy irrational current running through it.

[The Atheist]

All I'm saying is that science isn't perfect because of PEOPLE--just like religion.

I don't have a problem with that statement, although linking it to religion is spurious, because nothing is perfect, therefore science is just like everything else in life & the universe.

So far, so good.

You should really learn to read between the lines.

Nonsense.

You're trying to cover an egregious anti-science position by saying that one needed to read between the lines to "get it". The only thing between your anti-science lines were more anti-science lines.

Anyway, you've retracted into a position of "science isn't perfect" and I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

[The Atheist]

Now, I don't trust RationalWiki.

Colour me amazed.

When did you trust rational Wiki, by the way?

[glennr25]

I don't have a problem with that statement, although linking it to religion is spurious, because nothing is perfect, therefore science is just like everything else in life & the universe.

So far, so good.



Nonsense.

You're trying to cover an egregious anti-science position by saying that one needed to read between the lines to "get it". The only thing between your anti-science lines were more anti-science lines.

Anyway, you've retracted into a position of "science isn't perfect" and I doubt anyone will disagree with that.

It's funny that you have to resort to bashing my intellect and yet you have no evidence to prove my statements false. Why leave out all my other posts? Or was it your decision to ignore those statements because you don't believe them?

[Ecurb]

I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist. Since this is (supposedly) a literary board, I’ll offer a few examples of The Athiest’s rhetorical style. Note to any students: this is not a style you would want to copy, as it is trite, mean-spirited and irrational. Here are two examples from The Atheist’s recent posts:

I love the way you're disproving all of your own premises by posting the ravings of scientists who write anti-science agendas.

1.Priceless! That is the best of the day and I've already seen some hysterically funny ones this morning

With his typical disregard for the meaning of words, The Atheist writes “I love…” when he means, “I dislike and disapprove of…”. He then writes, ”Priceless”, when he means “worthless”, followed by, “I’ve… seen some hysterically funny ones…” when he means, “I’ve seen some stupid (or irrational, or incorrect) ones”. Note to The Atheist: writing “funny” things entertains readers, writing “stupid” things does not. Calling anything with which you disagree, or which you find irrational “funny” is simply a disagreeable attempt to get your readers to laugh at the person you are debating. Reasonable readers see it as evidence that you are a poor rhetorician.

The Atheist then goes on to prove that glennr25 is “anti-science”. How? He quotes glenn as writing, “Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion.” Why is this “anti-science”? Couldn’t a religious person say, instead, that glenn’s comment it is “anti-religion”?

One more point: “religion” is a complex set of human behaviors. The Christian Protestant EMPHASIS on “belief” being the defining characteristic of religion is not universal. Religion generally includes emphases on rituals, rites, social behaviors, laws etc. The Fundamentalist emphasis on “belief” has (it is true) created a (minor) tension between science and religion. Fundamentalists are required by custom to deny global warming, evolution of species, and (I forget what else).

These denials (I think) communicate group solidarity. If some people prove their willingness to suffer for the group by torturing themselves (The Sun Dance), and others by fasting on Ramadan, Fundamentalists inveigh against obvious scientific theories. The more obvious and accepted the theory – the more group solidarity is demonstrated by objecting to it.

In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on society’s laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. That’s (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know). Of course I agree that we should refrain from stoning adulterers to death, and should be able to make reasonable arguments to that effect without reference to Allah. However, we cannot assume that since God does not exist, it is OK to murder, steal, commit adultery or covet our neighbors’ goods. We humans made religion – but religion also made us. Our Western laws and mores are so entangled with religious thought that WE can never be free from it, while we remain ourselves. In part at least, God did CREATE MAN – although we created Him first. Man is a cultural creature – we create culture, and culture creates us.

p.s. Oh no! Now glenn just called one of The Atheist's posts "funny"! It's contagious!

[glennr25]

I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist. Since this is (supposedly) a literary board, I’ll offer a few examples of The Athiest’s rhetorical style. Note to any students: this is not a style you would want to copy, as it is trite, mean-spirited and irrational. Here are two examples from The Atheist’s recent posts:




With his typical disregard for the meaning of words, The Atheist writes “I love…” when he means, “I dislike and disapprove of…”. He then writes, ”Priceless”, when he means “worthless”, followed by, “I’ve… seen some hysterically funny ones…” when he means, “I’ve seen some stupid (or irrational, or incorrect) ones”. Note to The Atheist: writing “funny” things entertains readers, writing “stupid” things does not. Calling anything with which you disagree, or which you find irrational “funny” is simply a disagreeable attempt to get your readers to laugh at the person you are debating. Reasonable readers see it as evidence that you are a poor rhetorician.

The Atheist then goes on to prove that glennr25 is “anti-science”. How? He quotes glenn as writing, “Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion.” Why is this “anti-science”? Couldn’t a religious person say, instead, that glenn’s comment it is “anti-religion”?

One more point: “religion” is a complex set of human behaviors. The Christian Protestant EMPHASIS on “belief” being the defining characteristic of religion is not universal. Religion generally includes emphases on rituals, rites, social behaviors, laws etc. The Fundamentalist emphasis on “belief” has (it is true) created a (minor) tension between science and religion. Fundamentalists are required by custom to deny global warming, evolution of species, and (I forget what else).

These denials (I think) communicate group solidarity. If some people prove their willingness to suffer for the group by torturing themselves (The Sun Dance), and others by fasting on Ramadan, Fundamentalists inveigh against obvious scientific theories. The more obvious and accepted the theory – the more group solidarity is demonstrated by objecting to it.

In addition (to Morpheus): Of course it is true that religions often have an impact on society’s laws, mores, and politics. However, we should be careful not to fall into the error of thinking that the falsity of the postulates disproves the conclusion. That’s (I forget the logical error, something about the antecedent, you probably know). Of course I agree that we should refrain from stoning adulterers to death, and should be able to make reasonable arguments to that effect without reference to Allah. However, we cannot assume that since God does not exist, it is OK to murder, steal, commit adultery or covet our neighbors’ goods. We humans made religion – but religion also made us. Our Western laws and mores are so entangled with religious thought that WE can never be free from it, while we remain ourselves. In part at least, God did CREATE MAN – although we created Him first. Man is a cultural creature – we create culture, and culture creates us.

p.s. Oh no! Now glenn just called one of The Atheist's posts "funny"! It's contagious!

Astute observation, Ecurb. I am not defending religion at all in my debates. All I'm doing is trying to bring a little perspective to the discussions. There is nothing wrong with someone believing in God or someone who believes in evolution as long as they came to that conclusion without being manipulated by someone of authority. I am looking at this from a top-down perspective, analyzing the points and flaws of both sides. Neither is perfect, therefore neither one should hold supremacy over the other.

As for the use of "funny" in my last post, it was an attempt to point out the ambiguity of the term when it is presented with no facts. You got it, hopefully The Atheist does as well.

[The Atheist]

It's funny that you have to resort to bashing my intellect and yet you have no evidence to prove my statements false.

It would be funny if it were true.

Where have I bashed your intellect? I accused you of dishonesty, not stupidity. More false claims. You haven't even gone back Newton eating mercury, either.

Why leave out all my other posts? Or was it your decision to ignore those statements because you don't believe them?

Do you really want me to quote them all? I'm confident an independent reader will see your posts as I have.

Wouldn't it make much better sense to for you answer the questions I've put to you? Like this:

Cite where that actually ever happened, please, and who said it.

When you made this statement:

When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned....

I suggest that has never happened, yet you write it as fact. I ask for a cite and you ignore it, as you've done consistently throughout the thread.

Face it - you lost your argument, you changed your position, the time to walk away is about three posts ago.

[glennr25]

It would be funny if it were true.

Where have I bashed your intellect? I accused you of dishonesty, not stupidity. More false claims. You haven't even gone back Newton eating mercury, either.




Do you really want me to quote them all? I'm confident an independent reader will see your posts as I have.

Wouldn't it make much better sense to for you answer the questions I've put to you? Like this:

Cite where that actually ever happened, please, and who said it.

When you made this statement:

When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned....

I suggest that has never happened, yet you write it as fact. I ask for a cite and you ignore it, as you've done consistently throughout the thread.

Face it - you lost your argument, you changed your position, the time to walk away is about three posts ago.

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

[The Atheist]

I hope that the scientific peers criticizing journal articles are more precise in both their reasoning and rhetoric than The Atheist.

So do I.

I doubt anyone here thinks I'm a scientist writing peer reviews, so why you'd expect me to write like one is a little perplexing.

Man, times are hard when that's all you have.. Not to mention that what I'm replying to doesn't come anywhere near the description of science needing review.

Since this is (supposedly) a literary board,....

You're wrong there as well, sorry, it isn't metaphorical use at all - I do find anti-science posts backed up by statements like "Newton died from eating mercury" to be actually humorous in the extreme.

I also find your desperate attempt to defend glenn's nonsense by cherry-picking one of a large number of quotes to be pretty funny, too.

You really need to find better ammo.



You couldn't pay for one-liners like that.

[The Atheist]

Exhibit A: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

Oh wow. Your intellectual dishonesty actually knows no bounds.

Nowhere on that clip does Bill Nye say "My method of scientific research should not be questioned." or anything remotely like it.

Are you an evolution denier as well?

[glennr25]

Oh wow. Your intellectual dishonesty actually knows no bounds.

Nowhere on that clip does Bill Nye say "My method of scientific research should not be questioned." or anything remotely like it.

Are you an evolution denier as well?

Bill Nye is trying to stop people from teaching their kids about God, thus he is saying that the theory of evolution holds supremacy over creationsim. Do a little better at analyzing what he's trying to say while you're watching, it helps.

[glennr25]

Exhibit B: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo

I find Krauss' observation of teaching kids about God the equivalent to that of child abuse rather disturbing.