|
On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you?
|
On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said.
That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar.
As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
|
On October 01 2013 17:48 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you?
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time.
On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
I think you're missing the point here. MOST PEOPLE do not worry about what the text is that they get their proof of. As long as it's a religious/scientific authority, they believe it blindly, without thinking critically about it. The point here is not "science = religion", the point is that MOST PEOPLE believe in science the way they believe in religion. The veracity and legitimacy of what they're believing in is not the point.
I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:
Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time.
I'm trying to get my inital point accross since you obviously missed it. Criticism is ENCOURAGED by science. By criticising known theories and coming up with your own evidence, you're helping progress knowledge.
Criticism is DISCOURAGED by religion. Historically heresy got you killed. Nowadays, it will probably just get you disliked and ignored.
|
On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology.
You're missing the point. 300 years ago, scripture had at least as much credibility among authorities on pretty much any subject as Wikipedia or even scientific papers have today. John Doe doesn't give a flying fuck about empiricism and reason.
I am not trying to discredit science here, only those who accept, adopt and affirm whatever they've been told, and then feel smugly superior to others because they have been told other things. That applies to religious people as well, of course.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:
I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
Of course you do. You don't have to look yourself, because NASA checked the results first. Then tons of other astronomers did, both agencies in other countries, and amateur astronomers. Most people will not take a report which was released a few minutes ago and immediately believe it to be true, they will wait for it to be reproduced and tested by other scientists. When the majority of the scientific community agrees with the results, you realize you do not have the knowledge to question it any better than they did, so you accept it.
|
On October 01 2013 18:07 Birdie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:48 Tobberoth wrote:On October 01 2013 17:41 Birdie wrote:
I have to disagree here. Heresies, the Protestant Reformation, the split of the Roman Catholic Church into East and West, and later Anglican and Catholic, while there were many reasons for these, "believing and having faith" was certainly not one of them. Criticism has existed as long as there have been men.
Successfully criticising scientific theory gets you medals. What does heresy get you? Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Nowadays heresy gets you loads of cash most of the time. Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology. I think you're missing the point here. MOST PEOPLE do not worry about what the text is that they get their proof of. As long as it's a religious/scientific authority, they believe it blindly, without thinking critically about it. The point here is not "science = religion", the point is that MOST PEOPLE believe in science the way they believe in religion. The veracity and legitimacy of what they're believing in is not the point. I daresay (with all due respect) that you yourself will often believe things written in journals or perhaps in the media without questioning it. New planet discovered? You don't get a telescope out and have a look for it yourself (or maybe you do! Props to you if you do haha), rather you believe that NASA is telling the truth and not making up a story.
The irony is that you are missing the point. I know that most of what I believe I haven't and can't practically verify. No fucking shit. You don't say. I even said as much a few posts ago. But it does not matter that everyone believes things they hear from authority figures. The only thing that matters here is that, in principle, one type of belief is verifiable and one type of belief is not; one type of belief is based in empiricism and one type of belief is not.
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. People can and do change their minds in response to new, empirically derived evidence all the time about facts that they have no way of actually verifying. Most of that evidence is actually secondhand from experts or popularizers or an acquaintance or whatever. It does not matter. It is still a fundamentally different kind of belief than belief in religious propositions.
|
|
|
On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence.
This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
|
On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
You're saying that in your sample, you asked people about their beliefs, they cited some authority, you proved them wrong and they didn't accept it? That doesn't sound reasonable at all.
|
On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 17:55 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 17:43 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 17:30 IgnE wrote:
"Why do you believe Jesus is divine?"
"Why do you think vaccines cause autism?" "Because I've been told so, and if in doubt I can look it up in scripture / on Wikipedia." Seriously, that's how it works for most people. I tried this, I went around and asked random people I met (e.g. when commuting) about their beliefs, and rarely I saw reason involved. I'm not saying my "research" was very scientific, or the results statistically significant, but I saw some pretty alarming tendencies there. Edit: Also, what Birdie said. That is imbecilic. Saying I can look it up in scripture and saying I can look it up on pubmed are not the same kind of statement. One refers to a text that assumes it own veracity. The other is based in empiricism. Just because the two statements look structurally similar does not make them similar. As for the 'alarming tendencies' you noticed, that's a product of humanity's mediocre average. As I said in my last post, it's a problem that has roots in philosophy and logic, and is only tangentially related to science, despite your attempt to create a monolithic Science so that you can draw parallels to astrology. You're missing the point. 300 years ago, scripture had at least as much credibility among authorities on pretty much any subject as Wikipedia or even scientific papers have today. John Doe doesn't give a flying fuck about empiricism and reason. I am not trying to discredit science here, only those who accept, adopt and affirm whatever they've been told, and then feel smugly superior to others because they have been told other things. That applies to religious people as well, of course.
I am well aware that scripture had and still has a lot of credibility. Both kinds of beliefs that I have been talking about might have appealed to scripture in the 1600s in an attempt to fumble at truth.
On the one hand someone might cite scripture for the proposition that the orbits of the planets were circular. That kind of belief is still an empirical one for most people, because it is not impervious to evidence. It just so happened that in the 1600s, until Kepler rolls around, scripture might have been the best evidence available for most people.
On the other hand, someone might cite scripture for the proposition that Jesus was divine. That kind of belief was, and still is, an entirely different kind of belief from the first one.
Your original quote does not appreciate this difference:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised.
The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself.
And in an effort to avoid misunderstanding, using scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition back in 1600 is different from now. While before it might have been used as an authority on a variety of subjects, now we have compiled enough evidence that anyone with an average level of critical thinking skills and ratiocination believes that the scripture writers were no authority at all on things like the orbits of the planets.
|
On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim.
The average person on public transit has no fucking clue what they think or why they think, even less how to articulate the what and the why. Taking people's answers at face value in an informal poll is your first problem.
And everyone who is involved in science at a graduate level knows the problems involved in "doing" science. It does not change the fact that beliefs about facts and beliefs concerning religious propositions are two very different things.
|
On October 01 2013 18:24 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:23 And G wrote:On October 01 2013 18:17 IgnE wrote:
Most people do not believe in science the way they believe in religion. They believe in science in a way that is continually open to new evidence. This is a claim that I do not believe in, no matter how fuzzy it is formulated. As I already stated, I did some minor personal analysis based on a largely random (although not very large) sample and was very disappointed with the results. You seem pretty confident though, so I would be interested to hear what sort of evidence you have to support your claim. You're saying that in your sample, you asked people about their beliefs, they cited some authority, you proved them wrong and they didn't accept it? That doesn't sound reasonable at all.
Ah, it was a little more complicated than that. I didn't explicitely ask people about their beliefs; I tried to strike up a normal conversation, find out what they roughly believed in, and then either challenge those beliefs or figure out what they were based upon. I rarely got "authority" as an answer; usually I heard "because that's how it is, duh" or somesuch, accompanied by a weird look. I must say I did only bring up pretty "standard" theories such as plate tectonics, natural selection (not even evolution), and phenomena related to classical mechanics. There were cases where people had outright false beliefs, one (somewhat retarded) guy thought the seasons were caused by the elliptic orbit of the earth, and when I tried to explain Earth's axial tilt he said this had nothing to with the seasons because of the earth's rotation, at which point I ended the conversation as I was getting a headache.
All in all, I had no scientific ambitions when I did this, but the whole thing caused me to adjust my assumptions about other people's scientific literacy significantly downwards.
On October 01 2013 18:36 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself.
You seem to assume that the prime method by which most people adopt beliefs is through careful consideration and reasoning. And that, according to my experience, is so untrue it's not even funny anymore.
Again, you seem pretty confident about this, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what this confidence is based on.
|
On October 01 2013 19:07 And G wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 18:36 IgnE wrote:On October 01 2013 18:10 And G wrote:
This is the biggest problem with modern education; that it teaches "scientific facts" instead of the scientific method. Most of the people who talk big about "science" today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists are exactly the kind of people that would have been brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago. The difference lies only in the environment in which one was raised. The people who talk big about Science today and feel superior to brainwashed fundamentalists would not necessarily have been "brainwashed fundamentalists 300 years ago." They are exactly the kind of people that would have believed Kepler about the orbits of the planets when it became clear that he was right, even if they had no idea how to read or do basic math. The problem with your statement is that in the past it was more intellectually defensible to believe certain things. While those believing those things might appear to be the same kind of thing as believing Jesus was divine, they are quite different. It was easier to believe the scriptures as an authority figure on natural phenomena because people had not yet figured out better methods for discovering the laws of nature. There was no Kepler. There was no Darwin. There was no Einstein. But you are conflating scripture as evidence for an empirical proposition (however bad the evidence is) with scripture as an epistemic end in itself. You seem to assume that the prime method by which most people adopt beliefs is through careful consideration and reasoning. And that, according to my experience, is so untrue it's not even funny anymore. Again, you seem pretty confident about this, so I'm genuinely interested to hear what this confidence is based on.
I am not assuming that at all. I'm merely assuming that if I told someone who didn't know anything about it that mountain ranges were formed by meteors, and they believed me because I was a credible source, that they would change their mind if a world renowned geologist told them about the theory of plate tectonics. And that they believe the geologist has good empirical reasons for saying what he said. I.e. that it has been proven insofar as it can be. Even if they don't realize that they believe this last point, even if it's subconscious, most people in modern society have this implicit belief. If you asked them how the geologist knows that, they might not be able to articulate it, but people would not assume the geologist knows about plate tectonics through divine revelation. They would assume he knows because there is empirical evidence of some sort.
|
To be fair some people's religious beliefs are based on a similar structure. I've heard people say there's historical evidence Jesus was a real person (as far as I know there's little to no evidence outside the Bible). I've similarly heard people say that traditional medicine must work because otherwise it would not have survived. Or that the fact that so many people believe in Astrology suggests that 'there might be some truth in it'.
Some people experience visions and that evidence strengthens their faith. They might lack the techniques to evaluate their evidence correctly, but their belief is not arbitrary. It may not even be dogmatic, they might change their mind given the right type of evidence (for example seeing a different person express similar conviction in visions that are more obviously wrong, or just reading the right article about human perception or memory).
I suspect most religious people would give up their faith given the right arguments and right circumstances. Many even know this. Now, whether they would admit to it in an adverserial situation is a different question.
|
On October 01 2013 23:20 hypercube wrote:
To be fair some people's religious beliefs are based on a similar structure. I've heard people say there's historical evidence Jesus was a real person (as far as I know there's little to no evidence outside the Bible).
To your specific point about Jesus being a real person: his existence is well-accepted by historians through both Biblical and non-Biblical sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
|
There certainly is a difference between accepting a religious doctrine and accepting a scientific theory when one doesn't know the methodologies of either. Simply put, scientific theories deal with material reality and therefore they actually can be proved in substance. The methods are never just abstract because experimentation always occurs immanently - they aren't just thought experiments or logical games. The same cannot be said with religious doctrine (I only wish to speak of Christianity here since its my area of study). So even if the structure of thought that follows when an individual adheres to the authority of professional scientists may be the same as when one adheres to the authority of the church, there's a real qualitative difference between the two when it comes to real material verifiability. It would be unwise to gloss over this and this is something that scripture admits to anyway.
But yes, there is a real problem of scientific methodology not being taught properly which causes all sorts of problems with pseudo-sciences and comically misguided notions of proof and evidence. But these kind of misunderstandings are rife at every aspect of life and in every field of study.
|
New short blog is up. It's not really a topic or journal, but rather an article I found on facebook that talks, in medical terms, about what kind of pain Jesus most likely had to endure on the cross. It goes beyond what we see (which we often take for granted): flogging, thorns on his head, and nails in his hands/wrists. Take a moment to read about the excruciating torment and appreciate what Jesus willingly endured for you.
http://theprogressivefaith.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/the-torment-of-jesus-death/
|
On September 28 2013 06:32 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2013 06:02 HardlyNever wrote:On September 28 2013 05:48 IronManSC wrote:
I'm not interpreting that correctly enough, and that ultimately I ought to agree to disagree with you. This may be part of the disconnect. Or maybe it is just a typo, I don't know. You've agreed that the bible is open to interpretation. The problem is that you seem to think there is a "correct" interpretation. Interpretation means it is open for opinion, discussion, and debate. There is no "correct" interpretation; you have to decide what you think is correct, in your opinion, and work from there. There is no one definitive right answer. So following this logic: 1. We've established that the bible is open for interpretation. 2. We've established that there can be multiple, and even contradictory, interpretations. There is no "correct" interpretation. 3. What this means is that, ultimately, it is you who choses how to interpret the bible (or anything else). You can read into it, and take out of it, what you want. So when people justify their bigoted, homophobic, or similar ideas as "not their own, just following the bible," it doesn't hold much water. The bible is up for personal interpretation; you can choose not to follow those antiquated social "norms" (and some christians don't). However, when you chose to interpret the bible in a way to justify those sort of ideas, that are generally not thought to be consistent with 21st century western equality, you're going to come under personal scrutiny, because it is you who has chosen to interpret the bible in this way. The underlying problem in this entire discussion is that people, like yourself, seem to think that truth is tangible in a way that you want it to be. In other words, how you interpret the Bible is therefore truth to you. It's not a matter of cherry picking verses that you want to believe and then making it your personal truth. The truth - the Gospel - is Jesus Christ, who came down from heaven to die for our sins, so that we can be made right with God through him, that if we should accept him wholeheartedly and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and Savior, then we will be saved.
Damn, I thought this was a great post from HardlyNever and I was really hoping you would consider it and provide a thoughtful response to why you believe the gospel or your interpretation of it is true. The reason I was hoping for this is because it is probably the key reason that I do not consider myself a Christian, because I can't find any reasons to have faith in the bible that do not require me to already have faith.
This is also, I think, why many people accuse you of being closed-minded and anti-intellectual, when asked "Why do you have faith?" your answer is something along the lines of "Because the bible is truth and it tells me to have faith" but if you were truly thinking and discussing open-mindedly you would realise that that doesn't answer the question at all because stating the bible as truth must mean you already have faith.
So I'm asking you this because I truly want to know the answer, but I don't want an answer that stems from the bible, why is it that you believe that the bible is the true word of God?
|
I also would like to hear your answer to that question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
